Public Disorder

David Cameron: With permission, I would like to make a statement. First, let me thank you, Mr Speaker and right hon. and hon. Members for returning. When there are important events in our country, it is right that Parliament is recalled and that we show a united front. I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for the constructive approach he has taken over the past few days. I have tried to speak with many of the Members whose constituencies have been affected, and I would like to pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for his powerful words and actions over recent days.
	What we have seen on the streets of London and in other cities across our country is completely unacceptable, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning it. Keeping people safe is the first duty of Government. The whole country has been shocked by the most appalling scenes of people looting, violence, vandalising and thieving. It is criminality, pure and simple—and there is absolutely no excuse for it. We have seen houses, offices and shops raided and torched, police officers assaulted and fire crews attacked as they try to put out fires. We have seen people robbing others while they lie injured and bleeding in the street, and even three innocent people deliberately run over and killed in Birmingham. We will not put up with this in our country. We will not allow a culture of fear to exist on our streets, and we will do whatever it takes to restore law and order and to rebuild our communities.
	First, we must be clear about the sequence of events. A week ago today, a 29-year-old man named Mark Duggan was shot dead by the police in Tottenham. Clearly, there are questions that must be answered, and I can assure the House that this is being investigated thoroughly and independently by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. We must get to the bottom of exactly what happened, and we will.
	Initially, there were some peaceful demonstrations following Mark Duggan’s death and understandably and quite appropriately the police were cautious about how they dealt with them. However, this was then used as an excuse by opportunist thugs in gangs, first in Tottenham itself, then across London and in other cities. It is completely wrong to say there is any justifiable causal link. It is simply preposterous for anyone to suggest that people looting in Tottenham at the weekend, still less three days later in Salford, were in any way doing so because of the death of Mark Duggan. Young people stealing flat-screen televisions and burning shops—that was not about politics or protest, it was about theft.
	In recent days, individual police officers have shown incredible bravery and have worked in some cases around the clock without a break, and they deserve our support and our thanks. But what became increasingly clear earlier this week was that there were simply far too few police deployed on to our streets, and the tactics that they were using were not working. Police chiefs have been frank with me about why this happened. Initially, the police treated the situation too much as a public order issue, rather than essentially one of crime. The truth is that the police have been facing a new and unique challenge, with different people doing the same thing—basically, looting—in different places but all at the same time. To respond to this situation, we are acting decisively to restore order on our streets, to support the victims of this terrible violence and to look at the deeper problems that led such a hard core of young people to decide to carry out such appalling criminality. Let me take each in turn.
	First, restoring order. Following the meetings of Cobra that I chaired on Tuesday and Wednesday, and again this morning, we have taken decisive action to help ensure more robust and more effective policing. As a result of decisions made by Metropolitan police Commissioner Tim Godwin and other police chiefs up and down the country, there are now more police on the streets, more people being arrested, and more criminals being prosecuted. The Metropolitan police increased the number deployed on the streets of London from 6,000 to almost 16,000 officers, and this number will remain throughout the weekend. We have also seen large increases in deployments of officers in other affected areas. Leave in affected forces has been cancelled, and police officers have been bussed from forces across the country to areas of greatest need. Many businesses have quite rightly released special constables to help, and they performed magnificently as well.
	More than 1,200 people have now been arrested across the country. We are making technology work for us, by capturing the images of the perpetrators on CCTV, so even if they have not yet been arrested their faces are known and they will not escape the law. As I said yesterday, no phoney human rights concerns about publishing these photographs will get in the way of bringing these criminals to justice. Anyone charged with violent disorder and other serious offences should expect to be remanded in custody, not let back on the streets; and anyone convicted should expect to go to jail.
	Courts in London, Manchester and the west midlands have been sitting through the night, and will do so for as long as is necessary. Magistrates courts have proved effective in ensuring swift justice. The Crown courts are now starting to deal with the most serious cases. We are keeping under constant review whether the courts have the sentencing powers they need, and we will act if necessary.
	As a result of the robust and uncompromising measures that have been taken, good progress is being made in restoring order to the streets of London and other cities around our country. As I have made clear, nothing should be off the table. Every contingency should be looked at. The police are already authorised to use baton rounds. As I said yesterday, while they would not be appropriate now, we do have in place contingency plans for water cannon to be available at 24 hours’ notice.
	Some people have raised the issue of the Army. The acting Commissioner of the Metropolitan police said to me that he would be the last man left in Scotland Yard with all his management team out on the streets before he asked for Army support. That is the right attitude and one I share, but it is the Government’s responsibility to make sure that every future contingency is looked at, including whether there are tasks that the Army could undertake that might free up more police for the front line.
	Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organised via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good, but it can also be used for ill, so we are working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.
	I have also asked the police whether they need any other new powers. Specifically on facemasks, currently they can only ask for them to be removed in a specific geographical location and for a limited time. I can announce today that we are going to give the police the discretion to require the removal of face coverings under any circumstances where there is reasonable suspicion that they are related to criminal activity. On dealing with crowds, we are also looking at the use of existing dispersal powers and whether any wider power of curfew is necessary.
	Whenever the police face a new threat, they must have the freedom and the confidence to change tactics as necessary. This Government will always make sure they have the backing and political support to do so. The fight back has well and truly begun, but there will be no complacency. We will not stop until this mindless violence and thuggery is defeated and law and order is fully restored on all our streets.
	Let me turn to the innocent victims. No one will forget the images of the woman jumping from a burning building, or of the furniture shop that had survived the blitz but has now tragically been burnt to the ground; and everyone will have been impressed by the incredibly brave words of Tariq Jahan, a father in Birmingham whose son was so brutally and tragically run over and killed. Shops, businesses and homes—too many have been vandalised or destroyed and I give the people affected this promise. We will help you repair the damage, get your businesses back up and running and support your communities.
	Let me take each in turn. On repairing the damage, I confirm that any individual, home owner or business that has suffered damage to or loss of their buildings or property as a result of rioting can seek compensation under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, even if uninsured. The Government will ensure the police have the funds they need to meet the cost of any legitimate claims, and whereas normally claims must be received within 14 days, we will extend the period to 42 days. The Association of British Insurers has said it expects the industry to be paying out in excess of £200 million, and has assured us that claims will be dealt with as quickly and constructively as possible.
	On supporting business, we are today setting up a new £20 million high street support scheme to help affected businesses get back up and running quickly.
	To minimise the costs facing businesses, the Government will enable local authorities to grant business rate relief, by funding at least three quarters of their costs. We will defer tax payments for businesses in greatest need, through Time to Pay and other practical support. And for houses and businesses that have been the most badly damaged, we have instructed the valuation office to immediately stop liability for council tax and business rates.
	A specific point was raised with me in Wolverhampton yesterday—that planning regulations make it difficult for shops to put up protective shutters. We will weed out unnecessary planning regulations to ensure that businesses can get back on their feet and feel secure as quickly as possible.
	On supporting local communities, I can confirm that the Bellwin scheme to support local authorities will be operational. However, to ensure that urgent funding is immediately available, we are today establishing a new £10 million recovery scheme to provide additional support to councils in making areas safe, clean and clear again. The Government will also meet the immediate costs of emergency accommodation for families made homeless by the disturbances. The Secretaries of States for Communities and Local Government and for Business, Innovation and Skills have made available to the House details of all those schemes today. Of course, the situation continues to evolve, and we will keep any additional support under close review.
	Finally, let me turn to the deeper problem. Responsibility for crime always lies with the criminal. These people were all volunteers; they did not have to do what they did, and they must suffer the consequences. But crime has a context, and we must not shy away from it. I have said before that there is a major problem in our society with children growing up not knowing the difference between right and wrong. This is not about poverty; it is about culture—a culture that glorifies violence, shows disrespect to authority and says everything about rights but nothing about responsibilities.
	In too many cases, the parents of these children—if they are still around—do not care where their children are or who they are with, let alone what they are doing. The potential consequences of neglect and immorality on this scale have been clear for too long, without enough action being taken. As I said yesterday, there is no one step that can be taken, but we need a benefit system that rewards work and is on the side of families. We need more discipline in our schools; we need action to deal with the most disruptive families; and we need a criminal justice system that scores a clear, heavy line between right and wrong—in short, all the action that is necessary to help mend our broken society.
	At the heart of all the violence sits the issue of the street gangs. Territorial, hierarchical and incredibly violent, they are mostly composed of young boys, mainly from dysfunctional homes. They earn money through crime, particularly drugs, and are bound together by an imposed loyalty to an authoritarian gang leader. They have blighted life on their estates, with gang-on-gang murders and unprovoked attacks on innocent bystanders.
	In the past few days, there is some evidence that they have been behind the co-ordination of the attacks on the police and the looting that has followed. I want us to use the record of success against gangs from cities such as Boston in the USA and, indeed, from the Strathclyde
	police in Scotland who have engaged the police, the voluntary sector and local government. I want this to be a national priority.
	We have already introduced gang injunctions, and I can announce today that we will use them across the whole country for children and for adults. There are also further sanctions available beyond the criminal justice system. Local authorities and landlords already have tough powers to evict the perpetrators from social housing. Some local authorities are already doing this. I want to see others follow their lead, and we will consider whether these powers need to be strengthened further.
	I have asked the Home Secretary to work with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and other Cabinet colleagues on a cross-government programme of action to deal with this gang culture and to report to Parliament in October.
	I believe that we should be looking beyond our shores to learn the lessons from others who have faced similar problems. That is why I will be discussing how we can go further in getting to grips with gangs with people such as Bill Bratton, former commissioner of police in New York and Los Angeles. Of course, the problem is not just gangs; there were people who saw shop windows smashed and who thought that it would be okay just to go in and steal. It is not okay, and these people, too, will have to face the full consequences of their actions.
	In the past few days, we have seen a range of emotions sweep this country: anger, fear, frustration, despair, sadness and, finally, a determined resolve that we will not let a violent few beat us. We saw that resolve in the people who gathered in Clapham, Manchester and Wolverhampton with brooms to clean up our streets. We saw it in those who patrolled the roads in Enfield through the night to deter rioters. We saw it in the hundreds of people who stood guard outside the Southall temple, protecting it from vandalism. This is a time for our country to pull together.
	To the law-abiding people who play by the rules and who are the overwhelming majority in this country, I say, “The fight back has begun. We will protect you. If you’ve had your livelihood and property damaged, we will compensate you. We are on your side.” To the lawless minority, the criminals who have taken what they can get, I say: we will track you down, we will find you, we will charge you, we will punish you. You will pay for what you have done.
	We need to show the world, which has looked on, frankly, appalled, that the perpetrators of the violence we have seen on our streets are not in any way representative of our country, or of our young people. We need to show them that we will address our broken society and restore a sense of stronger morality and responsibility in every town, in every street and in every estate. A year away from the Olympics, we need to show the world the Britain that does not destroy, but that builds; that does not give up, but stands up; that does not look back, but always looks forward. I commend this statement to the House.

Edward Miliband: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for his decision to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that Parliament be recalled. Whatever we disagree on week by week, month by month, today as a House of Commons we stand
	shoulder to shoulder, united against the vandalism and violence we have seen on our streets. The victims are the innocent people who live in many of our cities, who have seen their homes and businesses destroyed, their communities damaged and their confidence about their own safety undermined. There can be no excuses, no justification. This behaviour has disgusted us all. It cannot be allowed to stand; we will not allow it to stand.
	I join the Prime Minister in mourning the loss of life, including those killed in London and Birmingham. Our thoughts are with the families and friends of those who have died—with people such as Tariq Jahan. We stand with him because he is the true face of Britain—the Britain of which we are all proud.
	I also thank our brave policemen and women throughout this country for the work they have been doing on our behalf, and all our emergency services. We salute them for their courage, their dedication and their willingness—yet again—to put themselves in harm’s way for all of us and all our communities. Thanks to them, a degree of order has been re-established on our streets, but all of us in all parts of the House know what the public want and what they are entitled to: a return to normality, as well as order.
	Normality does not mean shops having to shut at 3 pm because they fear looting. Normality does not mean rushing home because you are scared to be on the streets. Normality does not mean being fearful in your own home. People want to have back the most fundamental of all liberties: the ability to go about their business and lead their lives with security and without fear. They have a right to expect that and we have a responsibility to make it happen. To do that, Parliament needs to do its job. We need to unite against the violence and to be the place where we examine and debate frankly all the issues involved—how we have got here, what it says about Britain and what the response should be.
	On policing, I agree with the Prime Minister that this is a job for the police, but will he say what functions he thinks the Army might be able to perform to relieve pressure on the police? Will he confirm that the significant additional operational costs that the police now face will be funded from the Treasury reserve and so not place extra pressure on already stretched budgets? Will he also confirm that the increased presence on our streets, which he said would remain in place to the weekend, will remain beyond the weekend, until the police can be confident that the trouble will not recur?
	The events of the past few days have been a stark reminder to us all that police on our streets make our communities safer and make the public feel safer. Given the absolute priority the public attach to a visible and active police presence, does the Prime Minister understand why they will think it is not right if he goes ahead with the cuts to police numbers he has planned? Will he now think again about that policy?
	On criminal justice, the public are clear about wanting swift, effective and tough action to send a message about the penalties and punishment that follow from the violence that has occurred. We must see swift progress from charge to trial in these cases. Can the Prime Minister confirm that there is the capacity in the courts and among our prosecutors to deal with cases swiftly, not just for first appearance, but throughout the trial process, including when people get to trial? It is right
	that the Crown Prosecution Service is taking into account the aggravating circumstances within which the horrendous criminal acts that we have seen took place in recent days. Does the Prime Minister agree that magistrates and judges need to have those circumstances at the front of their mind so that those found guilty of such disgraceful behaviour receive the tough sentences that they deserve and the public expect? As the Prime Minister said, we have also been reminded about the importance of CCTV in catching those responsible, so will he undertake to look again at his proposals on CCTV to be absolutely sure that they in no way hinder bringing criminals to justice?
	Thirdly, we need all our cities back on their feet and operating as normal. That work began—I pay tribute to the heroism of the thousands of volunteers who reclaimed our streets and showed the true spirit of those cities and our country. I welcome what the Prime Minister said and all the different elements of help that he announced. Can he reassure us that the help that is provided will meet the need, and that there will not be an arbitrary cap on the amount that he announced if it turns out that further resources are required? Can he assure us that these funds will flow straight away so that people can get on with rebuilding their lives and communities?
	Fourthly, on the deeper lessons that we need to learn, the Prime Minister said in 2006:
	“Understanding the background, the reasons, the causes. It doesn’t mean excusing crime but it will help us tackle it.”
	To seek to explain is not to seek to excuse. Of course these are acts of individual criminality, but we all have a duty to ask ourselves why there are people who feel they have nothing to lose and everything to gain from wanton vandalism and looting. We cannot afford to let this pass and calm the situation down, only to find ourselves in the same position again in the future.
	These issues cannot be laid at the door of a single cause or a single Government. The causes are complex. Simplistic solutions will not provide the answer. We can tackle the solutions only by hearing from our communities. What the decent people I met on the streets of London and Manchester told me and will tell the Prime Minister is that they want their voice to be heard. They want us to go out and listen to them in thinking about the solutions that are necessary. Before any of us say we know all the answers or have simple solutions, we should all do so.
	Will the Prime Minister explain how those in areas affected will have their voice heard as the Government seek to find solutions to the issues that we have seen? Does the Prime Minister agree that there must be a full independent commission of inquiry swiftly looking at what has happened in recent days and what lessons we need to learn—not an inquiry sitting in Whitehall hearing evidence from academic experts, but reaching out and listening to those affected, the decent law-abiding majority affected by these terrible events? They deserve and need to be heard.
	We need to look at and act on all the issues that matter—the responsibility we need from top to bottom in our society, including parental responsibility; an end to a take-what-you-can culture that needs to change from the benefits office to the board room. The Prime
	Minister is right. We need a sustained effort to tackle the gangs in our cities—something we knew about before these riots. In the consideration that the Prime Minister gives to how we tackle gang culture, will he look urgently at the Youth Justice Board report published last June, which had a series of recommendations about what the Government should be doing to tackle gang culture?
	Of course, as we look at the solutions we need, questions of hope and aspiration are relevant—the provision of opportunities to get on in life that do not involve illegality and wrongdoing. When we talk about responsibility, we must not forget ours, not to the tiny minority who did the violence, but to the vast majority of law-abiding young people. They are a generation—this is not about any one Government—worried about their prospects and we cannot afford to fail them. We cannot afford to have the next generation believe that they are going to do worse than the last. They should be able to do better. That is the promise of Britain that they have a right to expect.
	In conclusion, successful societies are built on an ethic of hard work, compassion, solidarity and looking after each other. Ours must be one society. We all bear a share of responsibility for what happens within it. It is right that we came back to debate these issues. It is right that public order must be paramount, but it is also imperative that even after order and normality are restored we do not ignore the lessons that we must learn. We cannot afford to move on and forget. To all the people who have been in fear this week, to those who have lost loved ones, homes and businesses, we owe a duty to ensure that there is no repeat of what we have seen. That is our responsibility to the victims and to the country, and the Opposition will play our part in making it happen.

David Cameron: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said today, but also for what he has said in recent days, and, if I may say so, the way in which he has said it. He made a number of points.
	First, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to praise the emergency services and the work they have done. It is particularly remarkable that in spite of the fact that fires have been started in many cities across our country, there have been no casualties from those fires. That speaks volumes about the professionalism and brilliance of our firefighters nationwide.
	The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that it is important that as soon as possible we get our high streets, cities and towns back to a real sense of normality. That has to start with the increased police presence so that people feel the confidence to go out and enjoy their towns and cities, and I believe that that will happen, so that our cities become the great and bustling places that we want them to be.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the police, the courts, communities and the deeper lessons, so let me just say a word about each. I chose my words on the Army carefully. None of us wants to see a break away from the great British model of policing where the public are the police and the police are the public, but Governments have a responsibility to try to look ahead at contingencies and potential problems, and to start asking about potential problems and difficulties in advance. That is exactly what Cobra has done—for instance, by
	simply asking whether there are tasks, such as some simple guarding tasks, that could be done that would free up police for more front-line duties. This is not for today, or even for tomorrow; it is just so that there are contingency plans in case they become necessary.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about operational costs. Of course, the Treasury reserve is being used. He asked about policing numbers beyond the weekend. Deployment must be an issue and a matter for police chiefs. They will want to assess the intelligence and the situation before making those decisions, but they should feel free to deploy as many police as they need for as long as they need. What matters most of all, more than anything else, is restoring order on our streets.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of police budgets, and I am sure that this will be debated. Let me just make a couple of points. Over the next four years, we are looking for cash reductions in policing budgets—once we take into account the fact that there is a precept that helps fund the police—of 6%. I believe that is totally achievable without any reductions in visible policing, and a growing number of police chiefs are making that point.
	Let me make two additional points on that. Today we still have 7,000 trained police officers in back-office jobs. Part of our programme of police reform is about freeing up police for front-line duties, and that is why I can make this very clear pledge to the House: at the end of this process of making sure our police budgets are affordable, we will still be able to surge as many police on to the streets as we have in recent days in London, in Wolverhampton, in Manchester. It is important that people understand that.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the courts system and whether we can surge capacity in our magistrates and Crown courts. Yes, that is exactly what Cobra has been asking for in recent days. On sentencing, I chose my words carefully. Of course, it is for courts to sentence, but the Sentencing Council says that those people found guilty of violence on our streets should expect to have a custodial sentence.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about CCTV. We fully support CCTV. We want to regulate it to make sure that it is used properly, but it has been immensely valuable, as I have seen for myself in police control rooms up and down the country.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be any cap on the money that is available for communities. Of course, the Riot (Damages) Act has no cap at all, and because we are allowing the 42-day period people will be able to apply to the police and the Government will stand behind the police.
	When it comes to the deeper lessons, the right hon. Gentleman is right. He quoted a speech that I made when I said that explaining does not mean excusing, and he is right to say that the causes are complex. I hope that the debates we will have on the causes will not immediately fall into a tiresome discussion about resources. When there are deep moral failures, we should not hit them with a wall of money. I think that it is right that the absolutely key word that he used, and which I used, was responsibility. People must be responsible for their actions. We are all responsible for what we do.
	Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked how we will listen to communities and what sort of inquiry is necessary. As I found when talking with many Members on both
	sides of the House, who are deeply in touch with their communities, their police forces and police chiefs, one of the first things we can do in this House is properly bring to bear all the information we are hearing from our communities, and I understand that the Home Affairs Select Committee is going to hold an inquiry. I think that we should ask a parliamentary inquiry to do this work first. I thank him for the general tone of what he said and hope that we can keep up this cross-party working as we deal with this very difficult problem.

Peter Tapsell: Why have our police been dispersing these hoods so that they can riot in other vicinities, instead of rounding them up? Does the Prime Minister remember that in 1971, at the peak of the opposition to the Vietnam war in the United States, the US Government brought 16,000 troops into Washington, in addition to the police, who rounded up and arrested the rioters and put 40,000 of them in the DC stadium in one morning? Has he any plans to make Wembley stadium available for similar use?

David Cameron: I want the Wembley stadium to be available for great sporting events, and I think that it is important that as we get back to a sense of normality those sporting events go ahead. My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and to be fair to the police—we should all think carefully before starting to criticise police tactics when they are the ones on the front line—they now say that to begin with they spent too much time concentrating on the public order aspects and not enough time concentrating on the criminality aspects. It has been the greater police presence on the streets and the greater number of arrests that has helped to bring this situation under control. One police chief told me yesterday that it is time to tear up some of the manual on public order and restart it. He said, “We have done this many times in the police and we will do it again and get it right.” It is in that spirit that we should praise British policing.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. A great many colleagues are seeking to catch my eye, which is entirely understandable. I want to accommodate Members, but I issue with particular force my usual exhortation for brevity.

David Lammy: I welcome what the Prime Minister has said about the death of Mark Duggan and about compensation for victims. In Tottenham, 45 people have lost their homes, which were burnt to the ground. They were running out of their homes carrying their children in their arms, and their cry is, “Where were the police?” We can have this debate today, but it is no replacement for hearing from the people themselves. Will the Prime Minister come to Tottenham and speak with those victims and the independent shopkeepers, hairdressers and jewellers whose businesses are lying in cinders? Will he also commit to a public inquiry to consider why initial skirmishes were allowed to lead to a situation in which the great Roman road, Tottenham high road, now lies in cinders?

David Cameron: I will certainly take up the right hon. Gentleman’s invitation to go to Tottenham and hear about that for myself. When I visited Croydon, I
	found real anger on the streets about what happened and how it could be allowed to happen. There was a lot of questioning about police tactics and the police presence. As I said in my statement, to be fair to the police, I think that to begin with, because of the situation with Mark Duggan, they were hanging back for a very good reason, but they clearly understand and accept that that went on for too long and that their presence needed to be greater, more robust and needed to protect people’s homes and shops. We will now do everything we possibly can to get those people re-housed quickly and ensure that that money is available, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has been in touch with almost all the local government leaders affected and we will keep that up. In terms of what inquiries are necessary, I think that we should start with the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry. We should let it do its work and take it from there.

John Leech: Will the Prime Minister encourage media organisations to release immediately all unseen footage of criminal behaviour in order to assist the police in bringing criminals to justice?

David Cameron: I will certainly do that, and I was impressed, in the control room of the West Midlands police and emergency services yesterday, by how amateur photographers have been sending in footage to help the police to arrest those who are guilty. As has been said today, everyone has a responsibility. Media organisations, too, have a responsibility, and I hope that they will act on it.

Jack Straw: No one disputes for a second the Prime Minister’s determination to meet what he describes as the first duty of Government to keep the streets safe, but does he not understand that his repetition of what amount to Treasury lines about police numbers and police budgets, and about prison numbers, sounds very complacent? Could I beg of him to recognise not only the reality that those cuts will lead to fewer police on the streets, but that he must reverse the softer sentencing plans of his Justice Secretary and stop the ludicrous plan that the Justice Secretary has to close prisons when there is patently now an urgent need for more prison places?

David Cameron: I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about police numbers, and indeed neither do chief constables—many chief constables. The chief constable of Thames Valley police said that
	“what I haven’t done at all is reduce the number of officers who do the patrol functions, so the officers you see in vehicles, on foot, in uniform, on bicycles. We haven’t cut those numbers at all.”
	Let me make this additional point to the right hon. Gentleman. One thing the past three days have demonstrated is that the Met, where we have 32,000 officers, actually could take the action to surge from 3,000 on the streets to 16,000 on the streets. I think that is a demonstration of using what you have to maximum effect.

Malcolm Rifkind: Metropolitan police officers have shown great courage and a high degree of determination over the past few days, but does the Prime Minister share my concern about reports that police officers on several occasions were instructed to stand and observe the rioting and looting? Does he agree that that cannot be acceptable behaviour, and that, if perhaps for understandable reasons because of the controversies after the G20 summit the police are concerned that they might be criticised for over-reacting, there is an urgent need for fresh guidelines so that there is no ambiguity and that it is the police, and not looters and rioters, who will control our streets?

David Cameron: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point, and obviously we will look again at the guidance. Let me be clear: there was no instruction to police officers to stand back, but as I have said, and I think police chiefs have been very frank about this, the balance between what is right for public order and what is right for stopping criminality—looting and thieving—was not got right to start with. They admit that, they accept that, but they were—to be fair to the police, who do that very difficult job on behalf of us all—facing a new set of circumstances. Yes, they have had riots before; yes, they have had looting before; and yes, there has been violence and vandalism; but we have not in our country before had the same thing happening in different places with different people all doing it at the same time. That was a challenge for the police—a challenge that I believe they are now meeting excellently—but they did not get everything right to start with and they are the first to admit that.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his telephone call yesterday. What happened in Salford on Tuesday night was not about protest; it was about deliberate, organised, violent criminality. Will he give his full backing to the police to intervene in such circumstances? It was the case that some officers, who did not have riot gear and were not trained, had instructions to stand by and watch what happened. The effect on public confidence is devastating, so will he ensure that the police have the backing and confidence to review the guidance so that we never again see the police fall back in the face of a violent mob, as we saw on our streets?

David Cameron: The right hon. Lady speaks with all the authority of a former Policing Minister who knows this issue well and, I know, discussed it with the chief constable of Greater Manchester. Clearly, what happened in Salford was unacceptable, and tragically it reversed very many good years of excellent work, breaking up gangs and taking on organised criminals, and I suspect that what happened is that those gangs and criminals saw it as an opportunity to reassert themselves. All those lessons must be learned, and I know that the Greater Manchester police chief, to whom I too have spoken, wants to learn those lessons. It is not right ever to cede control of our streets to hooligans, which is what happened briefly in Salford, but we have to rest with the operational judgment of police chiefs when they are on the streets, and the time to learn the lessons is now.

David Davis: I commend the Prime Minister for his decision to take action on gangs, but I want to raise another issue with
	him. He rightly told the House that the whole country was moved by the dignified words of the father of Haroon Jahan yesterday, who made those comments against the background of some ethnic tension and managed to calm the situation. There is at least a risk that evil-minded people will try to use these conflicts to raise ethic tensions and conflicts further. Will the Government take action with the leaders of communities to ensure that that is not done and is prevented?

David Cameron: The Government will certainly do that. I was in Birmingham yesterday and joined a meeting of community leaders from all religions, all creeds and all races, who came together to make sure that the communities did not respond in an inappropriate way to the dreadful events that had happened. I pay tribute to the chief constable of West Midlands police, the leader of Birmingham city council and all the people who went out from that meeting and spoke to their communities to appeal for calm. The scenes that we all saw on our television screens last night of communities coming together in Birmingham to try to stop the violence was a model of how these things should be done.

David Winnick: Bearing in mind what the Prime Minister has just said, what justification can there be in the west midlands for very experienced police officers who have served for 30 years or more being forced to retire against their wishes because of the cuts? Is it not the case that where there is no adequate police presence, as has unfortunately been the case once or twice in the past few days, the mob takes over?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. When I was in Wolverhampton yesterday, I heard that the number of police officers was something like doubling overnight compared with the previous night. I suspect that the same was happening in Walsall, West Bromwich and other parts of the west midlands. One lesson we must learn is that we need the ability to surge the number of police in our communities very rapidly when such problems arise. Let me say again that the police do a difficult and dangerous job on our behalf. They learn from experience. The police in our country are hugely experienced in dealing with difficult situations. They do not always get it right. We must praise them when they do get it right. Here, we must say that some of the tactics need to change, but we should not substitute our own judgment for theirs—that would not be a sensible approach.

Nick de Bois: My constituents and I witnessed shocking events in Enfield on Sunday and Monday. What was particularly shocking was the age of a number of the culprits. Will the Prime Minister ask the police authorities to work with the education authorities to identify the many secondary school children who were out there causing these crimes?

David Cameron: That is certainly a sensible suggestion. Over and above that, we must recognise that the responsibility for the fact that some of these children—I use the word “children” advisedly—are out on the streets rests with their parents. We need parents to take more responsibility for their children, teach them the difference between right and wrong, and point out that this sort of behaviour is completely unacceptable.

Gerald Kaufman: It is undeniable that these criminals who looted, stole, rioted and caused intolerable damage to their victims must be dealt with by the police and the justice system. I ask the Prime Minister, do we regard these people, however abject their acts, as irreclaimable to society, at great cost to the police, the justice system and the prison system, or will we have positive policies to try, if at all possible, to reclaim them for society?

David Cameron: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must never write people off, however bad they are. We must try to build a stronger society in which we can turn people’s lives around. One of the lessons from this is that too many people have been left for too long and we need much earlier intervention. This is something that Members from all parts of the House have spoken about. When we see children going wrong, we must intervene earlier rather than leaving them to fall out of school and lapse into a life of criminality.

Nadine Dorries: If these riots had broken out in any city or town in Australia or America, the police would have had at their instant disposal water cannon, plastic bullets and tear gas. Across the UK, British people watched on television while police were instructed to stand back when shops were looted, homes were torched and cars were set on fire. Does the Prime Minister really believe that 24 hours’ notice of the use of water cannon is good enough? Is it not the case that this is not about police numbers, but about police being given the tools to do the job?

David Cameron: First, let me say to my hon. Friend that the police have access to baton rounds and they can make the decision to use them—in London, they came quite close to making that decision. That must be an operational decision for the police. The very strong advice from the police is that because, on the whole, they were not dealing with very large crowds, but with very mobile crowds who were intent on criminal behaviour, water cannon would not have been appropriate in those circumstances. That is the police view. The point that I have made is that we should be ready for every possible contingency in future, so we should know how we would answer future questions. That is why water cannon are now available at 24 hours’ notice.
	However, I do not agree with my hon. Friend in that I think that the greatest possible deterrent to the sort of lawlessness that we saw is for people to know that, if they do that looting and violence, they will be pulled out of the crowd, arrested immediately and be in front of a court that night. That is the answer. The key to that is more police on the streets so that they are able to be more robust in their interventions.

Keith Vaz: I welcome all the steps that the Prime Minister has taken since the start of the disorders and join him and others in condemning the criminality and praising the police. Like him, I was out on the streets of London yesterday, and the key issue was police visibility. Is the Prime Minister saying that, if a police force has to dip into contingencies to pay for what has happened in the past few days, the Government will reimburse all the money?

David Cameron: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said and for the work that I know his Committee will do in the coming weeks. The Treasury is standing ready to assist police forces. Clearly, the bill for the Metropolitan police force for the past few days will be large and, if they continue to deploy in those numbers, it will get larger and the Treasury will stand behind that.

Simon Hughes: Those of us in the communities affected give our thanks to the police and the emergency services, but are conscious that if the best deterrent is being caught, the police have a minority of officers trained and able to use riot headgear and equipment. Will the Prime Minister, with the Home Secretary, consider reversing that so that there is a presumption that most police officers are in that position, and can act and intervene? Will he ensure that the full force of the law does not descend only on the hardened 50 per community—the serial criminals—but on the adults with children who were also going into the shops and nicking stuff, and not just the children for whom they are meant to set an example?

David Cameron: On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, of course there will be a proper review of the right balance between riot police and normal borough policing so that we meet such emergencies better in future. Of course that will happen.
	In terms of prosecuting the guilty, the police should go after everybody. They have the CCTV images, and people all over the country are ringing up and explaining that their neighbour has just acquired a new 42-inch plasma screen. I encourage even more people to do that for as many people as possible to be nicked.

Louise Ellman: The people of Liverpool are united in their absolute condemnation of the criminal acts that wreaked so much havoc and caused so much fear in parts of Liverpool in the past few days. What specific arrangements has the Prime Minister made to enable the city and others that have suffered similarly to be assisted in a swift recovery?

David Cameron: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for speaking on behalf of Liverpool, which also suffered from the violent disorder. Liverpool will be able to apply, through not only the existing Bellwin scheme but the new special scheme which does not have a threshold that needs to be crossed to claim payments. Also, the Riot (Damages) Act is effectively unlimited in the claims that can be made and, as I have said, the Home Office will stand behind police forces. There is therefore a series of measures and there will be written statements in the House today, so the hon. Lady can see full details and share them with her council leader.

Andrew Rosindell: I know that the Prime Minister will agree that we in Britain still have the best police force in the world. However, does he also agree that it is time that the police were refocused on being crime fighters instead of social workers?

David Cameron: I think the police have the clearest possible message that we want them to be a police force. We want them to be focused on crime; we do not want them fighting paper behind their desks. They have had a
	very clear message from the whole country this week that people want visible policing, but they want very robust policing too.

David Miliband: The Prime Minister will be as pleased as I am that there has been no rioting or looting in South Shields. He has rightly praised the independence and professionalism of the chief constables. Why, therefore, does he want to get rid of them all and make them stand for election?

David Cameron: We are not proposing to make chief constables stand for election; what we are proposing is to have police commissioners stand for election, replacing police authorities. The point that I would make is this: yes, we have independent police chief constables and, yes, they have to be responsible for their judgments, but in recent days the argument that it is important that they are accountable politically—and there is a discussion that can take place between politicians and police chiefs—is a thoroughly good one.

Angie Bray: Ealing town centre was badly smashed up on Monday night. A man is critically ill in hospital, having been attacked by a yob when he tried to put out a fire in a litter bin. People are pretty devastated. Morale was slightly lifted when we heard the Prime Minister say that those big enough to take part in the protest are big enough to take the consequences. Can he assure my constituents that those who are found guilty of being caught up in this mayhem will feel the full force of the law, including prison sentences?

David Cameron: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I thank her for the briefing that she gave me on what had been happening in Ealing, particularly on Monday night. I can give her that assurance: sentencing must be a matter for the courts, but the Sentencing Council is clear that people taking part in violent disorder should expect to go to prison.

Stella Creasy: May I invite the Prime Minister to join me and the people of Walthamstow in putting on record our gratitude not only to the police, who have worked so hard to restore calm to our streets, but to the outreach and community workers, who have been out every night talking to people to reduce the tension and restore order on our streets in partnership with the police? May I invite him to meet those people, so that he can understand that talking about resourcing that work is not a tiresome debate? Rather, we must learn from their experience in restoring order, not just over the next few days but on every day in our communities across the country.

David Cameron: I am certainly happy to meet the hon. Lady. The point she makes—that reclaiming the streets is an issue not just for the police but for everybody—is absolutely right, and we have seen fantastic examples of that right across our country. The point that I was trying to make about resources is that of course resources will be debated in the debate that follows, but I hope that we can also have a debate about some of the culture, some of the upbringing, some of the parenting and some of the deeper points that lie behind these problems.

David Davies: Front-line officers were telling me last night that they have been afraid to use a measure of physical force because of concerns about criticisms by Members of Parliament, which they have seen before. I welcome the Prime Minister saying that we will be robust and do whatever it takes, but can he assure us that Members of this House will support the police if they have to strike people with batons or kettle them in? Force has to be met with greater force.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise, because he serves as a special policeman. The point is this: people want robust policing, and of course the police have to be sensitive to things that have happened in the past—sometimes the pendulum can swing too far one way, and then too far the other way—but I am sure that the message has been received loud and clear that when there is such violent criminal behaviour, people want a very robust response.

Heidi Alexander: The Prime Minister has talked about the role played by gangs and technology in the disorder that has taken place over the last week. Does he share my concern about the popularity and accessibility of internet footage glorifying gangs and knives? What will he do to ensure that those despicable videos are taken down?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady speaks very powerfully for Lewisham and her constituency, and also on this issue, on which frankly everyone has responsibilities —not just Members of Parliament, the police and parents, but media companies and social media companies that are displaying those images. All of them should think about their responsibilities and taking down those images. That is why the Home Secretary is going to have meetings with those organisations to see what more can be done.

Gavin Barwell: Two of the shocking images that the Prime Minister referred to in his statement took place in my constituency. May I thank him for coming to Croydon on Tuesday? Yesterday and the day before, my constituents finally got to see the kind of policing—in terms of visibility and robustness—that they want to see every day. Can he reassure me and my constituents that we will see not just a temporary change in police tactics and visibility, but a permanent one?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for what he did to introduce me to some of the affected shopkeepers and home owners in his constituency, some of whom have been made homeless. I can give him that assurance, because—as I have said—one of the things that has been demonstrated in the last few days is the importance of surging police numbers quickly. There are 32,000 officers in the Met, and having just 3,000 on the streets on Sunday and 6,000 on Monday was not enough. That is why action was taken to increase the numbers and I am sure that lessons will be learned in that regard.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Police Service of Northern Ireland has been available with resources to support the police here in what they are doing. In the context of reviewing the actions of the police in the past few days, may I ask the Prime Minister to get them to involve the PSNI, given its lengthy
	experience of riot control, so that it can advise on how to handle such situations in future?

David Cameron: It is of course enormously helpful having Sir Hugh Orde, who served so well in Northern Ireland, as chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers, and I raised in Cobra myself the issue of accessing the expertise of the PSNI. One of the issues that we needed to grip quickly was the fact that this was not a political protest; they were looting gangs and so every case was different. That was one of the difficulties that the police service faced.

Edward Leigh: Is it any wonder that these events have taken place when the authority of parents, teachers and the police has been eroded so consistently for so many years? Hopefully the Prime Minister will reverse that process. He has said again and again that it is the stability of families that counts, and he has made tremendous progress in advancing the debate, but before the election he said that marriage was the key and that he would introduce a married persons tax allowance. That still has not happened. Will he now do it?

David Cameron: As my hon. Friend knows, I think that we should support families and marriage in every way that we can. We should set a simple test for all Government policies of whether what we are about to do will enhance responsibility, whether of parents, teachers in school or police officers on the streets. If it will, we should do it, but if it would not, we should not do it.

Elfyn Llwyd: Does the Prime Minister realise that in times of economic downturn acquisitive crime always increases? The difference this week was that it was backed up by extreme violence and perpetrated by mobs. In that light, may I ask him to reconsider the cuts to police budgets? He will be seen as giving in not to mob violence, but to common sense.

David Cameron: I simply do not accept this determinism that changes in the economy mean automatic changes in the levels of criminality. Indeed, the figures for the last recession disprove that. We should be clear in this House that it is criminals who are responsible for crime. It is an individual act, and we should hold people responsible for their acts.
	Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Welsh police forces that gave great support to police forces across England.

Mark Pritchard: I congratulate the Prime Minister on the leadership that he has shown on this issue and the initiatives that he has announced today. Is it not the case, though, that those local authorities that attempted to close down youth services should think again and perhaps consider shutting off some of the more lavish perks enjoyed by some local authority workers instead?

David Cameron: At a time when everyone has to make budget reductions, every organisation, be it central Government, local authority or police force, has to focus on the front end and the things that matter most. We are doing that in government and police forces are doing it too. Local authorities should do the same.

Diane Abbott: I was on the streets of Hackney at the height of the rioting on Monday night, and I know how frightened people were and remain. The most important thing is to regain control of our streets, but on the question of the Army, let me say this: I am well aware how attractive the further militarisation of this situation is to some Members of this House and even to some of my constituents, but the Prime Minister will be aware that Sir Hugh Orde, who has ordered the firing of baton rounds and the use of water cannons in Northern Ireland, is against the use of such things in the current situation. I say to this House, whether it is a popular thing to say or not, that the further militarisation of the situation we face will not help and might bring things to an even worse level.

David Cameron: First, let me agree with what the hon. Lady said, I think very powerfully, about the fact that this was criminality on the streets, and about how frightened people were. I agree with Hugh Orde and others who say that now is not the time to take such steps. Government have a responsibility to ask about contingencies: to work out what will happen next, and what would happen if things got worse. Those are responsibilities that we take very seriously. Let us, however, take this opportunity to pay tribute to what the armed services often do in our own country when it comes to floods and other emergencies. They play an incredible role, and we should thank them for it.

Roger Gale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at a time like this, facing the circumstances that we face, it really is a nonsense that magistrates courts must refer cases to the Crown court because their own sentencing powers are inadequate? Will he take immediate steps to give magistrates courts the powers to deal with these cases so that the perpetrators can be where they belong—behind bars?

David Cameron: As I said in my statement, we keep the sentencing powers under review. Magistrates courts can pass sentences of up to six months, and they have been doing so. They have been passing sentences overnight, and also referring cases to the Crown court. I think it vital for us to ensure that there is enough Crown court capacity to deal with these cases quickly.

Barry Sheerman: May I beg the Prime Minister to change his mind about the commission of inquiry? This is not going to go away, although we might wish it to do so. It is a complex, changing social phenomenon, which we have to understand in order to combat it. Will the Prime Minister announce the establishment of a commission of inquiry this week? This goes to the roots of the present situation. As the Prime Minister knows, I am a great supporter of Select Committees, but it is not enough to leave the matter to a Select Committee inquiry; we need a national commission of inquiry.

David Cameron: I think that we should have confidence in the ability of our Select Committees in the House to do this work, and I think that the Home Affairs Committee does an excellent job. As I have said, I do not rule out other things for the future, but let us start with that. Sometimes, commissions of inquiry have had to be ordered because Committees of the
	House have not been able to reach the information or the people, but I do not see why that should be the case in this instance.

Jennifer Willott: Some cities have suffered hugely this week, while others have avoided violence and managed to quash any potential trouble before it kicked off. When inquiries are established and when the Select Committee does its work, will the Prime Minister ensure that we learn lessons not only from the areas where violence did kick off, but from cities such as Cardiff and Sheffield, where there was no trouble? Perhaps we can learn lessons from what went right in those areas.

David Cameron: The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and any inquiry should certainly do that.

Malcolm Wicks: I, too, thank the Prime Minister for visiting Croydon earlier in the week, where he met our decent citizens who had become victims, had seen their buildings and businesses burnt down, and had seen their offices and shops trashed. The plea from people in that Croydon war zone—for that is what it was—was “Where were the police?” For hour after hour after hour, people were free to pillage and loot, with no uniformed officers around.
	This is not partisan. May I ask the Prime Minister, on behalf of the people whom I have met over the past two days, distraught and sad people, the people of Croydon North who have been the victims—may I plead with the Prime Minister, on behalf of my constituents—to think again about police numbers? The people of Croydon, and indeed the people of London, want more police in London, not fewer. Providing fewer would be precisely the wrong policy, at precisely the wrong time for our society.

David Cameron: The time that I spent in Croydon with the right hon. Gentleman was incredibly powerful. I heard about the immense frustration, and the anger, that those shopkeepers, householders and tenants felt. Let me say this to the right hon. Gentleman, however. The problem was that the police were not on the streets. The problem was not about police budgets in four years’ time, but about the availability of the police right now. There are 32,000 officers in the Met. We needed to get more of them on to the streets more quickly, and more of them to Croydon. It is about now: it is not about the budgets of the future.

Iain Stewart: I welcomed the Prime Minister’s comments about the role of social media. May I urge him to look into might be called the internet equivalent of hoax 999 calls? It would seem that the police have had to waste considerable time dealing with false and malicious rumours about mob activity, and the law and penalties must be fully up to date with that.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Just as the police have been using technology more effectively, so the criminals are now using technology more effectively. An awful lot of hoaxes and false trails were laid on Twitter, BlackBerry Messenger and the rest, and we need a major piece of work to make sure the police have all the electronic capabilities that they need to hunt down and beat the criminal.

Andrew Smith: Can the Prime Minister say what measures he has in mind to strengthen families, and in particular parental responsibility, which so many members of the public rightly think is a big factor in all of this?

David Cameron: Let me give the right hon. Gentleman just one area where we have already made progress but I want to see further progress: discipline in schools. We have got to make sure that schools are able to confiscate things from children and to exclude children without being overruled by appeals panels. All those steps add to responsibility. We must also make sure that every single tax and benefit is pro-family, pro-commitment and pro-fathers who stick around. Part of the problem is that fathers have left too many of these communities, and that is why young people look towards the gang.

Conor Burns: The Prime Minister has referred twice in the past 24 hours to phoney concerns about human rights. He will be aware of the many letters we all receive from people who are dismayed by decisions taken that seem to laugh at our values and beliefs in this country. If he is serious about wanting to build the responsible society, may I suggest that that will be much more easily achieved if we remove the invidious Human Rights Act from legislation?

David Cameron: The specific point that I was making was about the concern that is often expressed, and was expressed to me over the past couple of days, as to whether under the Human Rights Act “Wanted” pictures, as it were, could be published. I wanted specifically to send a message to police forces and local authorities that they should go ahead and do that. On the Human Rights Act more generally, my hon. Friend knows that we have plans to reform it at source under the European convention on human rights.

Richard Burden: In relation to Birmingham and the west midlands, may I add my tribute to the work of the police, the emergency services and local authority workers, and also to the active citizenship shown by the broom brigades and the profound dignity of Tariq Jahan last night? However, I ask the Prime Minister to look again at the police budget figures he mentioned. He mentioned 6%, but the cuts amount to a lot more than that for metropolitan areas because of the way the formulae work. Will he look again at that, as I think he may be operating on the basis of duff figures?

David Cameron: First, let me again pay tribute to what was done in Birmingham; it was a model of bringing communities together, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman played a part in that.
	The point I am making is that police funding comes from both the grant and the precept, and if we make normal assumptions about the precept, what we are asking for is on average a 6% cash reduction over four years. I do not think that that is impossible while keeping up police visibility, and a growing number of police chiefs are agreeing with that. For the hon. Gentleman’s West Midlands force, we are basically taking the funding back to its 2007 level. From the way he is speaking, people would think we were taking it back to the 1987 level.

Margot James: I urge the Prime Minister to resist the knee-jerk calls for a revision to the plans for the police budgets and police numbers. We should remember that this is about the deployment and management of resources, and about the more effective use of resources. That is the view of my chief constable in the west midlands, and it is the view that should prevail.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right: what matters is getting the most out of the budgets that are there. This is not a big day for politics, but both parties went into the last election promising to make reductions in policing budgets; the Opposition were proposing a reduction of £1 billion. As we are prepared to freeze police pay, reform allowances and ask for greater contributions to pensions, and because we have got rid of the stop form and are reducing reporting on stop and search, we can make those reductions without affecting visible policing. But that is possible only because we have made those difficult decisions, which the Opposition are not making.

Virendra Sharma: On Tuesday night, all was quiet across Ealing, but there had been warnings that Southall might come under attack. Local people at the Sikh gurdwaras, mosques, Hindu temples and churches arranged to place volunteers outside their religious places of worship to protect them. I thank the Prime Minister for mentioning Southall and the role played by the volunteers during that day, but I assure him that those people were led by the local Member of Parliament, local councillors, faith leaders, community leaders and business leaders. May I ask him to come out to my constituency and meet those volunteers and community leaders so that they can ask him a few questions that they feel have not been answered in the past and that they fear he will not be able to answer in the future? Will he visit my constituency in the very near future?

David Cameron: I can see that I am going to get a number of very enticing invitations today. I think the whole country admires the protection of the temple in Ealing, Southall. I have huge admiration for those people who want to protect their homes, their properties and their communities. Of course, that should be the job of the police and we need to ensure that the police are on the streets in greater numbers to do that. I pay tribute to the people of Ealing, Southall for what they achieved.

Peter Lilley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the problems addressed by his statement and those that will be addressed by the subsequent statement from the Chancellor have one factor in common: a widespread belief that anyone can have anything they want without paying for it and without living within their means? Will my right hon. Friend therefore resist the siren calls to give up his plans to make all departments, including the police, live within our means, especially as every police officer whom I know and to whom I have spoken says that they could dramatically increase the proportion of their time used effectively to the public good if they were deployed more efficiently? It cannot be beyond the wit of man to live within those budgets and improve good policing with 6% less resources.

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. I made a point of sitting down with my own chief constable in my constituency surgery and going through her budget line by line, to see the changes that were being made so that savings could be made but visible policing would not be affected. With a 6% cash reduction, it can be done.

Kate Hoey: The Prime Minister has made much, as others have, of the importance of parental responsibility. Does he realise that for many of the people involved in gangs, their parents are the gangs? Some of the issues to do with gangs and how they operate in inner-city areas such as Lambeth are crucial to this debate. Will he also tell me, please, what he means by a gang injunction?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady is entirely right that there is no single measure that will increase parental responsibility and break up gang membership. One reason why I have asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) to play a role is that, before he took up his role on the Front Bench, the social justice organisation with which he was involved spent a huge amount of time trying to look at the best practice in dealing with gangs. There are gang injunctions at the moment that apply only to adults—we will be applying them to children—which can prevent people from doing particular things. That is a good start, but, as I have said, there is no one single answer.

Richard Ottaway: May I join my colleagues from Croydon in thanking the Prime Minister for his visit, which was hugely appreciated? I also join them in their call to maintain the high police profile down there. Does the Prime Minister agree that once the situation is stabilised we need to consider the underlying causes and, as he says, to accept that there is a small group in our society who do not know the difference between right and wrong?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. From the television scenes it was quite clear that this was criminality and looting and that a lot of it was done by very young children who should have been under the control of their parents.

Graham Stringer: The Prime Minister is completely right when he says that the tactics failed. Many in my constituency who support the police were horrified when they saw police in full riot gear watching as looters went into shops, filled plastic bags full of loot and left, unarrested by the police. That was a victory for criminals. Will the Prime Minister give my constituents and this House an assurance that if there is another criminal assault on the centre of Manchester, all those criminals will be arrested?

David Cameron: I can go further than that and say that even those criminals who did such things while the police did not intervene in the way that he and others would have liked will be arrested, too. Their faces and pictures are captured on CCTV, and even as we had the Cobra meeting this morning 60 arrests took place across London. I am sure that the same is happening in
	Manchester, too. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to examine tactics and ensure we get things right in the future.

Robert Smith: The Prime Minister has quite rightly identified that there has been major criminal activity. I welcome the attempt to help the victims, and specifically to help small businesses through the deferral of tax. Will he also ensure that the tax authorities do not penalise businesses that are late in filing tax and VAT returns, and in doing the paperwork, because of the disruption with which they are coping?

David Cameron: We will certainly do that. That is why, as I said in the statement, there will be the facility for businesses affected to pay their tax late.

Paul Goggins: May I voice my support for the police, including the brave officers who faced unprecedented levels of violence and criminality in Manchester on Tuesday night? The Prime Minister says that this is about now, but there is one practical thing that he could do that would reduce the pressure on the Metropolitan police in particular: delay, or preferably cancel, the proposal to allow terrorist suspects, who are currently required to live away from London, to return to the city from the start of next year. Will he give that serious consideration?

David Cameron: As the right hon. Gentleman served in the Home Office, I will certainly look very carefully and closely at what he says. Let me join him in paying tribute to the police; his fellow Member of Parliament for Manchester, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), put it slightly differently. I am sure that everyone in this House will praise the bravery of officers, and what they do, putting themselves in harm’s way. It is not fair to blame them if sometimes the tactics do not work. I think we have to be very careful in the way we express ourselves on this issue.

Andrea Leadsom: Literally thousands of victims deserve to see justice done, and it seems to me that there is very heavy reliance on the use of closed circuit television to capture images. Are the police considering other things, such as spraying indelible chemical dye on rioters, so that they can identify them and pick them up the following day?

David Cameron: As I have said, I think the police should look at all available technologies and should keep abreast of all potential developments, here and in other countries, to make sure that they arrest as many people as possible.

Christopher Leslie: In Nottingham, the police public order squads, whom I accompanied last night, are a tribute to the best of our front-line public service workers, but does the Prime Minister recognise and accept that the scheduled reductions in public spending—not only for the police, but for the fire and ambulance services, the courts, and the much-maligned back office staff—will affect the ability of those teams to respond effectively? Will he please think again?

David Cameron: It is an hour and 20 minutes before I have said it, but I have to say it: there is a reason why we are having to reduce these budgets, and that is because we inherited a complete fiscal car crash. There is a connection between this statement and the statement that we are about to have, which is that if countries do not get control of their fiscal situations, we can see what happens, with even the largest countries in the world getting their debt downgraded.

Stewart Jackson: The Prime Minister is quite right to look at the events of this week in the context of social malaise and family breakdown. May I press him on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh)? The policy to which he referred—support for marriage in the tax system—was in the coalition agreement and the Conservative party manifesto on which we were both elected. Surely, this week of all weeks, it is time to look at the holistic context, support marriage and the family, review the policy, and bring forward proposals to support marriage and the family in our country?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that was in the manifesto, and it is indeed in the coalition agreement. The coalition agreement, where the two parties take a different view, makes allowance for that, and I remain a strong supporter of that proposal.

Alun Michael: As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I am confident that our report will make a serious and significant contribution, but does not the Prime Minister accept that something more than that is needed? We need an in-depth, wide-ranging, full-time report, led by somebody with an authority and independence equivalent to that of Lord Scarman, and we need that quickly if the issues to which the Prime Minister has referred are to be fully explored.

David Cameron: Let me make a couple of points to the right hon. Gentleman, who I know served in the Home Office. First of all, sometimes the need for wider commissions of inquiry has come about because the House of Commons Select Committees could not get to the bottom of an issue; we are not even at that point yet. Secondly, these events are still continuing, so to start talking about what sort of inquiry there should be now is, I think, wrong. The third point that I would make is this: of course one should not jump to conclusions, but I think everyone is clear on the differences between what we have seen in the last three days and what we saw in 1981. This was not political protest, or a riot about protest or politics—it was common or garden thieving, robbing and looting, and we do not need an inquiry to tell us that.

David Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that following the G10 demonstrations in London, and the unfortunate death that occurred, many police officers have been reluctant to use force? If they do use force, what reassurances can he give them?

David Cameron: The reassurance that I can give is that we will put the resources into the police force to make sure we have the trained officers whom we need.

Gisela Stuart: May I pay my tribute to the West Midlands police, who did an excellent job in trying to contain some very unpleasant events in Birmingham and surrounding cities? It was right for the courts to sit overnight, because those who are guilty have to be punished quickly, but what discussions has the Prime Minister had with the Justice Secretary to make sure that our prisons have the capacity to deal with what they will be receiving?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady raises a very important point, and I was in her constituency yesterday. The discussions that we have had at Cobra, and Justice Ministers were present at all the meetings, were to make sure that we had enough capacity in police cells, enough capacity in the magistrates courts system—the Solihull court has been sitting over a 24-hour period—and enough capacity in our prisons to deal with this. I have been assured on all those levels that the work is there and the capacity is available.

Philip Hollobone: What sanctions will be imposed on the parents of those juveniles who are prosecuted for being involved in the riots? Should not parents be held responsible in the courts for their children’s behaviour?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right. There are parenting orders that can be used, and I hope that they will be widely used on this occasion.

Luciana Berger: Yesterday and the day before, homes and businesses in my constituency were vandalised by a very small minority. It was the majority who came together in Liverpool on Tuesday and Wednesday morning to clean up the mess, but there is some damage that could not be swept away. The Prime Minister has said that the Government will ensure that the police have the funds to meet the cost of any legitimate compensation claim. Will the Prime Minister confirm that all these funds will be in addition to Merseyside police’s, and other police authorities’, existing budgets?

David Cameron: That is exactly what I have said. There is the Riot (Damages) Act, so businesses, even if they are uninsured, can apply to the relevant police force, and the Home Office will stand behind that force. That is obviously a scheme that has been in place for decades. In addition to that, there are, of course, the two schemes that I have announced today, one of which will directly impact on the hon. Lady’s constituency, because it was affected by the riots.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the Prime Minister agree that what we have witnessed on the streets of our major towns and cities is nothing more or less than pure criminality and thuggery? Those who seek to excuse that behaviour, putting it down to deprivation, poverty, or current Government policies, are themselves symptomatic of the no-blame, no-responsibility culture that has undermined our society and led us to this sorry state.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I have been struck, when meeting local people, community leaders and police officers, by the fact that everyone has been making the point that this is about criminality, and not about political protest.

Tom Watson: After the riot in West Bromwich, local traders told me that they feared the emergence of a new class of criminal consumer: BlackBerry-enabled, self-organised groups, whose new-found collectivism had diminished their fear of the police and increased their contempt for the law. Their clarion cry to the Prime Minister was: “Please reverse the planned reduction in police in the west midlands by 1,000 uniformed police officers.” [Interruption.] I am sorry he does not like to hear that. If he is going to give them the answer no, would he at least agree to keep the matter under review?

David Cameron: The first half of the hon. Gentleman’s question, which was all about the new technology that the criminal is using, bore no relation to the second half of the question, which was about resources. What matters is whether we are going to give the police the technology to trace people on Twitter or BlackBerry Messenger or, as I said in my statement, on occasion to close them down. That is the step that we should be taking, rather than immediately launching into a discussion of resources in four years’ time.

Charlie Elphicke: May I urge the Prime Minister to consider not just the amount of compensation and business continuity assistance, but its speed? Time is of the essence in getting businesses back on their feet, so that there are more jobs and money in communities that so badly need them.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I can say that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) will, from his office, be giving one-stop-shop advice to all Members of Parliament who have affected businesses that want to see that money flow quickly. It is very important not just to set up those schemes, but to make sure that the money is paid rapidly.

Mike Gapes: There are 1 million 11 to 19- year-olds in London. The Prime Minister has said a lot about children and young people, but he has not in an hour and a half said anything positive. Will he take this opportunity to make it clear that the vast majority of young people are decent, law-abiding, good people and they are appalled by the stigmatisation that they are getting from the media. They are appalled, they are afraid. They are not criminals. They are just in fear at this time.

David Cameron: To be fair, in my statement I said that what had happened was in no way representative of the brilliant young people we have in our country. As I understand it, tomorrow there will be a meeting of people, I think in Westminster, saying very specifically that this was not done in their name. I applaud that and all the other initiatives by people who have stood up and said, “This was not done for me or has anything to do with me.”

Julian Huppert: The Prime Minister has linked social media to violence. Will he join me in congratulating the huge number of people who have used social media for positive activities such as organising clear-ups? I pay particular tribute to
	Cambs cops for telling people what was happening and getting rid of rumours. Will he accept those positive issues and agree that clamping down on social media could have damaging consequences?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is why the Home Secretary is going to explore the issue with the social media companies and other services. The key thing is that the police were facing a new circumstance. Rioters were using the BlackBerry service—a closed network—so that they knew where they were going to loot next, and the police could not keep up with them. We have to examine that and work out how to get ahead.

Gloria De Piero: The Prime Minister has said that CCTV has proved highly valuable, so can he explain how he might make it easier for communities who want more CCTV to get more?

David Cameron: By making funds available. One of the first things I did in politics as a Home Office special adviser was to set up one of the first ever CCTV challenge funds so that communities could invest in it.

Robert Buckland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when it comes to punishment the courts need to put compensation of victims at the heart of their deliberations, whatever the income or means of the offender, and should deploy to their fullest effect the powers to confiscate the proceeds of crime?

David Cameron: I agree with my hon. Friend. He speaks with great expertise as he has practised criminal law. There may be opportunities in the forthcoming sentencing Bill to look at even further powers of confiscation to make sure we really get after these criminals.

Chuka Umunna: On Sunday and Monday night we saw violence, looting and ransacking in my constituency and my borough. Some people out in the country have sought to attribute these acts to particular racial or religious groups. While we may not know the exact causes of all the events around the country, does the Prime Minister agree that people of all different religions and races were responsible and that to racialise this issue is gravely wrong and does our country a great misservice?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. This was not about race, it was about crime.

Stephen Williams: My constituency in Bristol West had violent disorder not only this week but in April, and we appreciate the strong words that the Prime Minister has used today. In dealing with the deeper issues in society, does he agree that people who feel themselves marginalised from society are much more likely to first listen to and then respect those strong words if people at the other end of the social spectrum not just in the board room, as the Leader of the Opposition said, but rather more popular people in society do not display such venal and conspicuous consumption behaviour that sets such a bad example for people who are following them?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman is right, but in setting out, as it were, a hierarchy of message, it is important to get it across that there is simply no justification for the sort of looting that we saw. There is no excuse for it.

Pat McFadden: I thank the Prime Minister for coming to Wolverhampton yesterday and meeting retailers who were affected by what happened, including Mr Sham Sharma, whose computer shop was ransacked and looted. What we have seen in recent days is what happens when order breaks down. When order breaks down there is no liberty; there is fear. The Prime Minister is right to say that those who did this are responsible, but Governments also have responsibilities. Will he reconsider his Government’s plans to make CCTV harder for our communities to use instead of easier, and will he also look again at police numbers? The idea that the budgets cuts he is making will not affect numbers may look good as a line to take, but it will not convince the public—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

David Cameron: We are making sure that CCTV is properly regulated, but we do not want to restrict its use. CCTV is vital in the fight against crime, and I am 100% committed to it. May I say how much sense I thought the right hon. Gentleman spoke yesterday when he talked about the fine line between order and disorder and the importance of giving support to our police, including the excellent work done by the West Midlands force?

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I am very keen to accommodate the interest of colleagues, but we are now starting to get mini speeches. It is entirely understandable, but it absorbs a lot of time. May I appeal to colleagues for brevity—a legendary example of which I know will now be provided by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley)?

David Ruffley: Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has said that £1.5 billion a year can be made in police efficiency savings. Will the Home Office mandate collaboration to ensure that those savings are delivered, thus protecting the front line, which is what we all want to do?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. HMIC has said that those savings are available. It did not take into account the pay freeze for police officers, the increased pension contributions or some of the extra work that we have done to cut paperwork. That is why I feel so confident in saying that on average 6% cash reductions over four years should lead to no reduction in visible policing.

Karen Buck: We owe a debt of gratitude to our police services this week, but crisis policing is not an alternative to embedded, sustained, community policing. So I was disappointed when visiting damage in my constituency to talk to safer neighbourhood sergeants who are losing their jobs today and being
	made to reapply for them, as part of 300 safer neighbourhood job losses in London alone. The Prime Minister says that when circumstances change we must change. He must now change his policy of damaging the leadership of London’s safer neighbourhood police service.

David Cameron: As I said, what we saw in London over the past few days, where we have 32,000 officers in the Met, was a greater deployment of more of those officers on to the street. Frankly, it was not good enough that there were only 3,000 deployed when this started. It shows how much can be done, getting up to 16,000 deployed, with help from outside. Those numbers will be available at all times in the future, even with the reductions that we are making in budgets.

Tobias Ellwood: Today marks the start of a long, sober and difficult post mortem to find out why parts of our society chose to rob the very communities of which they are part. The Prime Minister implied that we must start by looking at the powers given to the police. May I ask him to assure the House that if the police choose to use water cannon they can do so without influence by Ministers? If necessary, they should also be allowed to close down mobile phone rebro masts, as was done after the 7/7 bombings, to make sure that we isolate the use of Twitter and Facebook, which allowed the mobs to be one step ahead of the police.

David Cameron: Of course conversations have to take place between the Home Office and the police about the use of different technologies or tactics. The point that the Home Secretary and I have been making over recent days is that they should feel free to examine whether they need these capabilities in the knowledge that they will have political support for doing what is necessary to keep our streets safe.

Barbara Keeley: The Prime Minister keeps referring to 16,000 police officers in London. We had them only because they came down in bus loads from places such as Salford, leaving the Greater Manchester police overstretched and unable to face down a violent crowd of 1,000 individuals. We have already lost more than 300 police officers. There is no case for any more cuts.

David Cameron: I do not think that the hon. Lady is being fair on the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police National Information Co-ordination Centre system, which makes sure that police officers are sent to the areas where they are needed. Greater Manchester itself was getting mutual aid from other parts of the country.

Penny Mordaunt: The Prime Minister spoke of the significant number of young people who have no moral compass and no sense of community. On Monday I visited one of the pilot sites of the national citizenship programme and was impressed with what I saw. May I ask that when those pilots are audited and reviewed, and recommendations are made for the programme proper, the events of the past few days are taken into account?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I feel passionately that national citizen service is a great idea for young people in our country and we want to make it available to as many young people as we can. We are piloting 30,000 places over the coming months and I look forward to visiting some of them. They will help to demonstrate what the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) spoke about, which is how many positive role models there are among our young people.

Angus Robertson: Hundreds of specialist police officers have been deployed from Scotland’s eight forces in support of colleagues in England, and it is right and proper that everything is provided to assist areas struck by rioting and disorder. Can the Prime Minister confirm what conversations he or the Home Secretary have had directly with the Scottish Government about that support?

David Cameron: I am not aware of any conversations, but I am aware of the excellent role that Scottish police officers played, particularly helping the West Midlands force. I saw for myself their impact when they arrived in Birmingham, and it is very good that our forces can co-operate in that way.

Andrew Selous: Will the Prime Minister pay tribute to police forces from outside London, such as Bedfordshire, which sent considerable numbers of officers to London and whose remaining officers have had to work greatly extended shifts, magnificently supported by large numbers of special constables, to keep policing going in Bedfordshire?

David Cameron: I certainly do. I support having local police forces; I was never in favour of large police mergers and the last 72 hours have demonstrated that we can have a system that gets the police officers we need in the places where we need them.

Catherine McKinnell: The police, courts and Crown Prosecution Service must be commended for their work around the clock to deliver swift arrests and charging decisions, but they have much more to do, not least to ensure that successful prosecutions are now delivered. Given the unprecedented nature of these events and the strain that the justice system is already under due to budget cuts, will the Prime Minister commit today to making additional resources available to ensure that justice can be delivered for victims?

David Cameron: At Cobra, there was not only a Justice Minister but also the Attorney-General, making sure that when a police force reported any problems with the local CPS we could work quickly to make sure that resources were put in place. We should continue that in the coming days, perhaps mostly at official level, to make sure that bottlenecks are dealt with.

James Clappison: I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend said about robust sentencing. Although speedy justice is important, it should not be at the expense of unacceptable compromises. Surely all those who organise riots through misuse of social media, attack police, throw missiles or commit arson should face long sentences of imprisonment.

David Cameron: I agree with my hon. Friend. It has to be for the courts to set sentences, but they have tough sentences available and I am sure they will use them.

Gerry Sutcliffe: These are indeed difficult times and the safety of our communities is important. The Prime Minister talked about the Olympics and the damage to our international reputation. It was right that the England international was cancelled on Wednesday, but is it right that Premier League and Football League fixtures may be cancelled this week? What is the Prime Minister’s view?

David Cameron: This was discussed at Cobra this morning. As I understand it, subsequent to that it has been decided that the Tottenham game against Everton should be postponed, but the intention is that other games in London, at the start of the Premier League season, should go ahead but perhaps starting earlier in the day. That sounds sensible, if it is indeed what has been agreed between the Premier League and the police.

Charlotte Leslie: I thank the Prime Minister, and very much welcome the tangible provisions he has put in place in case, heaven forbid, such riots should ever happen again. The fact that there has been no consequence from criminal actions has been a problem that communities out there have been screaming about for years, from low-level antisocial behaviour to excrement put through letter boxes—just talk to people in Henbury in my constituency. Although I very much welcome the provisions for emergency situations, can the Prime Minister reassure me that the fact that criminal and antisocial actions have consequences will seep right down to the start of those problems in our local communities?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend speaks powerfully about this. It will be a wake-up call to the police on the way they work with communities, and will make them even more determined that even low-level disorder and violence must be punished quickly. We must look for good things to come out of this situation, and one good thing should be that the police will connect themselves even more deeply to communities, some of whom do feel let down.

Robert Flello: I pay tribute to all the public sector workers we rely on time and time again, and in particular those in Staffordshire. Over many months, I have had letters from serving police officers concerned about the Winsor report and the knock-on effect on morale, and about A19 and losing senior officers. Now they are concerned about the fact that having been called on at our time of need—out on the streets, putting themselves in the firing line—they are having their leave cancelled and having to give up holidays due to overtime requirements. It was an hour and a half before we heard the words “Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary”, and we have heard nothing about Mayor Boris Johnson’s view about policing cuts. Will the Prime Minister finally get to his feet and address the loss of 16,000 jobs?

David Cameron: I do not know whether we need an inquiry into safety in the House, Mr Speaker, but someone seems to have stolen the hon. Gentleman’s jacket.
	I accept that we are asking police officers to do a difficult job and, yes, we are asking them to undergo a pay freeze, as other public sector workers are doing, but we are giving them the backing they want by cutting paperwork and enabling them to get out on the street and do the job they want to do.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s concern, but I assure the House that nothing disorderly has happened. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) was perfectly in order. He was focusing not on sartorial matters but on violence, and he was perfectly in order. We will leave it at that. I ask the House to try to rise to the level of events.

Stephen Metcalfe: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, particularly the support he is offering small and medium-sized businesses. As someone whose business has been directly affected, although not disastrously, I know the disruption it is causing. Will the Prime Minister assure me that no business will be lost and no livelihood subsequently lost because of the actions of those thugs and hooligans, and that the £20 million support fund, if deemed not big enough, will be increased to make sure that those things do not happen?

David Cameron: Of course we will keep the issue under review, and there is the Riot (Damages) Act as well as the £20 million scheme. I believe that should be enough, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will be on the case.

Caroline Lucas: Violence is always to be condemned, but as the Prime Minister said, seeking to understand violence is a world away from seeking to justify it. Indeed, we ought to try to understand it to stop it happening in future. Given the growing evidence, from Scarman onwards, that increasing inequality has a role to play in drawing at least some people into violent behaviour, can the Prime Minister reassure the House that comprehensive impact assessments will be undertaken before his Government introduce any more policies that increase inequality?

David Cameron: Everyone wants to see a fairer and more equal country, but I have to say to the hon. Lady that young people smashing down windows and stealing televisions is not about inequality.

Matthew Hancock: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating policemen from Suffolk and across East Anglia who came to London in support of their colleagues? Will he answer this question? My constituents were shocked to discover that only 3,000 of the 32,000 policemen in the Met were on duty. What are we going to do to change that and can we get cross-party support for it?

David Cameron: I certainly join my hon. Friend in praising Suffolk and other police forces in East Anglia and Essex who got police officers into our
	capital. The point I made about the deployment of officers is one of the lessons we have to learn about the ability to surge up numbers quickly when circumstances require it.

Dan Byles: Does the Prime Minister agree that no matter how good a job the police do in arresting people, too many thugs simply do not care if they are caught, because they have no respect for or fear of the criminal justice system? Until we resolve that, we will not be able to resolve the wider problem.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There will be people arrested this time who casually entered a broken-down shop and nicked things, thinking it was somehow okay, who will get an almighty shock when they get a criminal record, and potentially go to jail—quite right too. But my hon. Friend is right to say that there is a hard core who are not frightened enough of the criminal justice system, and we need to make sure that they are.

Tony Lloyd: On behalf of the overwhelming majority of my constituents who were appalled by the organised criminality that trashed the centre of Manchester, I thank the Prime Minister for his phone call to me. There has to be a review of policing tactics, and he is committed to it. That may reveal that because police officers in Greater Manchester were working 12-hour shifts on the night Manchester was trashed, there is a real question about the numbers available. In that context, can the Prime Minister commit to the House that he will at least review the situation to make sure that numbers can never be an issue in not having uniformed police on duty when we need them?

David Cameron: Of course, we will look at all these issues, and ACPO, the Home Office and others will want to learn all the lessons. I would simply make the point that, because it was possible in Manchester, London, Wolverhampton and elsewhere to surge the numbers up more rapidly on Tuesday, it would have been possible on Monday. This is not to criticise the police—no one can get everything right when they are dealing with these difficult situations—but we have got to look at the surge capacity, rather than pretending that this is all about resources in two, three or four years’ time.

David Burrowes: My constituents will commend the Prime Minister’s statement and the Leader of the Opposition’s sentiments, which are in marked contrast to those of the former London Mayor, whose shameful comments seeking to justify the riots that wreaked havoc in places such as Enfield should be condemned by all the House. Although we provide unqualified support to our police, is this about not just resources but empowering our police—perhaps to get their hands on water cannon or rubber bullets, but to free them up by reducing both the time that it takes to process individual arrests and this risk-averse culture, which is tying their hands?

David Cameron: As my hon. Friend used to work as a solicitor, he knows well that far too much time is taken up in paperwork after an arrest is made. We need to cut down that paperwork. Joint working between the
	police and the CPS is already helping with that. Virtual courts are helping, and the 24-hour courts that have been working around the clock have made a big difference, too.

Jim Sheridan: The vast majority of people in Scotland share the anger and frustration of the victims of these crimes, but they are extremely disappointed at the First Minister’s statement that this is an English problem. I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement that he will seek advice from Strathclyde police. Will he extend that to the judicial system in Scotland, which took seriously the concerns of the police and community and imposed appropriate sentences?

David Cameron: I will certainly look at what the hon. Gentleman says. I particularly admire the work that Strathclyde has done on gangs, and I want to ensure that we learn that across the United Kingdom.

Jane Ellison: The day after the riot and looting at Clapham Junction in the heart of Battersea, my constituency, we saw the inspiring sight of the broom army of volunteers coming together—many of them young people—to do something really positive. As well as wanting to reclaim streets, which I am afraid they did at times feel had been abandoned, they also wanted to express solidarity with local shopkeepers and businesses. I very much welcome what the Prime Minister has said on business rate suspension, but will he commit the Government to do all they can to support everyone locally who wants to ensure that we keep those vital businesses going and attract more businesses into our cities and town centres?

David Cameron: I certainly back what my hon. Friend says, and I know that she will be on to the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Communities and Local Government on behalf of her constituents. Let me say how much I admire the broom army, not just in Clapham but in other parts of our country. People came together to say that they did not want to put up with this and that they wanted to clean up their neighbourhoods. They are the best of British.

Jonathan Ashworth: The Prime Minister will be aware that, in Leicester city centre, in my constituency, we had some instances of thuggish criminality, but thankfully not on the scale of other cities. However, the most disgraceful incident was the torching of Age Concern’s ambulance bus, which takes many frail, elderly people to day care on a daily basis. Will the Prime Minister consider putting aside emergency funds—a pot of money—to which charities can apply, so that they can replace facilities that were destroyed in these riots?

David Cameron: I share what the hon. Gentleman says. Some of the things, places and people who were attacked were truly shocking. For people to attack the sort of facility that he talks about really is appalling and should make us stop and think about what has happened in our country. On getting compensation and money, I have set out the schemes, all of which, I think, will be available to the sort of charity that he speaks about.

Nicola Blackwood: I join the Prime Minister in praising the bravery of the emergency services and echo the disbelief of the House that children as young as 11 and 12 have been involved in the violence and criminality of the past few days. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the age of any of the rioters prevented the police from using anti-riot techniques?

David Cameron: I will certainly look at what my hon. Friend says. Of course, the age of criminal responsibility is 10, and we do not have any proposals to change that, but she raises an important issue about whether the police at any moment needed to hang back because of the very young age of the looters—some of people doing the looting were under the age of 10—and I will certainly get back to her about that.

Clive Efford: For the past two nights in my constituency, I have had a very heavy police presence, owing to right-wing extremist groups focusing on Eltham and trying to create unrest and bad feeling between different racial groups. Although we want to support people who are public-spirited and come out to defend their communities, as some of my constituents have done, will the Prime Minister join me in asking those people not to be diverted from their efforts by those extremists who seek to exploit the situation?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman speaks not only for his constituents, but, frankly, for the whole House in deprecating the English Defence League and all it stands for. On its attempt to say that it will somehow help to restore order, I have described some parts of our society as sick, and there is none sicker than the EDL.

Duncan Hames: It will soon be 50 years since the last royal commission on policing, and the Prime Minister today has alluded to some of the changing challenges that the police have faced in that time. Since it is at least as important to be able to mobilise police officers as to consider absolute numbers, will he consider the case for a fresh royal commission?

David Cameron: I am afraid that the need to reform and modernise the police and policing is more urgent than that. It is often said that royal commissions take minutes and last for years. I do not think that we have got years; we need to get on with the job now.

Rushanara Ali: When rioters spilled into the heart of my constituency on Monday night, local people of all backgrounds came together from businesses, mosques and the wider community. With the police, they stood in peaceful resistance to keep out the rioters and helped to keep the community safe. We are now faced with the threat of the English Defence League coming to my constituency in September. Despite requests to the police before these riots and to the Home Secretary, we have no affirmation that there will be a ban. Will the Prime Minister consider legislation, if necessary, to stop the EDL marching and to prevent static demonstrations from taking place?

David Cameron: As the hon. Lady will know, a process has to be followed whereby the local authority and the police have to apply to the Home Office for a ban. They should follow that process, and we will try to ensure that the right thing happens.

James Morris: My constituents are understandably angry about the violence in nearby West Bromwich and the centre of Birmingham. Does the Prime Minister agree that the most important thing now for the people of the black country and the west midlands is that the Government are seen to stand up for the law-abiding majority in our country?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I was very struck at the meeting that I had in Wolverhampton with shopkeepers and residents that they simply want to ensure that the Government and the police stand up for the law-abiding, take back the streets and make sure that they belong to the law-abiding people of our country.

Yasmin Qureshi: Will the Prime Minister confirm whether the Bellwin scheme will operate at 85% or 100%, as it did under Labour for flood victims?

David Cameron: The Bellwin scheme will operate in its normal way, so there will be a threshold, but of course, we are putting in place an alternative scheme that does not have a threshold or a maximum and minimum and that will be available through the DCLG.

Amber Rudd: The cities have been the victims of the violence and criminality, but is the Prime Minister aware that, throughout the country, such as in my community in Hastings, there were rumours and counter-rumours and social media activity about gangs meeting and that only the good work of community leaders and our local police stopped anything kicking off?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. A lot of those rumours were circulating. Although the use of social media helped gangs to do bad things, it also helped the law-abiding to know what was happening and how to react and stop it.

Kevin Barron: Violence against others and theft should clearly be dealt with by the criminal law, but does the Prime Minister accept that removing people from social housing for unacceptable behaviour and putting them in social housing in other communities, taking that unacceptable behaviour with them, does not solve the problem?

David Cameron: It can be part of solving the problem; it says to people in social housing, “If you misbehave, you can be thrown out of your house.”

Phillip Lee: I congratulate Thames Valley police on the support that they provided in London in recent days. Does the Prime Minister agree that relative poverty is no excuse for having no values?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right. Of course, we all want to see a country where opportunity is more equal, where people can go from the very bottom to the very top and where our schools are engines of social mobility, but the point that he makes is right: there is no excuse for the sort of law breaking, looting and violence that we saw.

Bill Esterson: Merseyside police say they will lose 880 police officers, with neighbourhood officers most at risk. Sir Hugh Orde says that “grass-roots neighbourhood policing” is key to policing in this country because of the effectiveness of building relationships and trust over the long run. Will the Prime Minister listen to Sir Hugh and reverse the cuts before long-term damage is done to the police’s ability to protect the public?

David Cameron: Chief constables up and down the country are now coming out and explaining how they will achieve these relatively modest budget reductions—6% in cash terms over four years—while maintaining the rate of visible policing. Labour committed to £1 billion of policing cuts; it would have had to do exactly the same thing as we are doing.

Lee Scott: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Sue Williams and the team in Redbridge on everything they did during the recent troubles and note the fact that what has changed in the past two days—I thank him and the Home Secretary for this—is that we have taken the handcuffs off our police and allowed them to do the job they want to do?

David Cameron: I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to his constituents and all those who played an important part in bringing some sanity back to London’s streets.

John Robertson: The Prime Minister has exalted CCTV, and rightly so. Does he agree with me that it can deter people from breaking the law? If so, will he look at the Protection of Freedoms Bill, which he obviously has not done yet, and change it so that local councils are allowed to put up CCTV cameras in areas such as those where riots took place?

David Cameron: Local councils can put up CCTV cameras and they will continue to be able to do so. We can all see how effective CCTV is when we see people walking out of court trying to hide their face because they know that is how they got caught.

Oliver Heald: Does the Prime Minister agree with me that those who are found guilty of committing crimes during the riots should be forced to face up to the full consequences for both their communities and individual victims of the damage they have done? That means tough sentences, but should it not also mean reparation? Does he agree that those young people should be forced to listen while the victims of their crimes explain what the damage to communities means, the jobs that will be lost, the damage to buildings and the sense of tragedy that many feel?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right. We should use all means to bring home to those criminals the damage that they have done to their communities and to local people, and he makes a number of suggestions in that regard.

Barry Gardiner: Does the Prime Minister accept that the events of the past five nights in London have changed the nature and context of the
	debate about police cuts? If he persists with them, the people of London will not understand and they will not forgive. Even his own party’s Mayor now opposes him on that policy.

David Cameron: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that people in London will understand our saying that, over four years, police forces have to make cash reductions to the budget and live within those means. People in London have seen over the past three days what can be done when numbers are surged and police are brought out from behind their desks and on to the streets—from 3,000 to 16,000 in just two days.

Mark Reckless: The Prime Minister speaks for the public on sentencing, but the guidelines are set by a quango. Will my right hon. Friend look again at the Sentencing Guidelines Council and consider transferring its powers either to Parliament or to the locally elected police and crime commissioners?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes some interesting suggestions. I have always felt that the Sentencing Guidelines Council should be properly scrutinised by Parliament. We are considering the right way for Parliament to express its views on the contents of that very important set of documents.

Dave Watts: May I give the Prime Minister the opportunity to dispel the confusion about his policy on surveillance cameras? Today, he seemed to say that he wants to see more of them, but the coalition agreement he signed up to says that the Government want fewer. Which is it?

David Cameron: We want to see them in the right place, properly regulated, and that may well mean more of them.

Philip Davies: Can the Prime Minister tell the House how many people have been charged under part I, section 1 of the Public Order Act 1986 with the specific offence of riot, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison? Does he agree that that would result in people being given the sort of sentences that the public demand, and will he make sure that the CPS does not undercharge people to get convictions, which will end in people getting lighter sentences that they deserve?

David Cameron: I cannot give my hon. Friend figures on which specific part of the Public Order Act people have been charged under, because, as he will know, that Act, which has really stood the test of time, has many parts under which charges can be laid. The latest figures that I have state that, in London alone, 880 people have been arrested and more than 370 have already been charged.

Nick Raynsford: At a meeting this morning attended by a number of London Members of Parliament of all parties who, like me, are concerned about the impact of the riots on their constituencies, the Mayor of London made it perfectly clear that these events made an overwhelmingly powerful
	case for reconsidering the cuts in the police budget, which will have an adverse impact on the number of police available on the beat. The Prime Minister has been unwilling to listen to Opposition Members, but will he listen to the views of that member of his own party, who is the one elected person other than a national politician with responsibility for policing?

David Cameron: Today, as we speak, only 12% of police officers are on the beat at any one time. I simply refuse to accept that we cannot get better value for money and cut paperwork so that we get the more visible policing that everyone wants. The Labour party seems to be completely intellectually idle about even considering changes that could be made that would increase the visibility of police in our communities.

Richard Harrington: Does the Prime Minister agree with me that, for rioters, the biggest deterrent is not being brought to the courts and being convicted, but the courts handing down what the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) described as some stiff sentences?

David Cameron: First, I think the greatest deterrent to such people is not just the sentence, but knowing that they will be arrested and put in front of a court. That is why the strength of numbers of police on the streets lifting and arresting people is vital. Secondly, when events such as these take place, it is perfectly possible for courts to set some exemplary sentences, to send out a clear message, and I for one hope they will do just that.

John Mann: Last Wednesday, it was determined that all nine police cells in Bassetlaw would be immediately closed. Does the Prime Minister instinctively agree with me and local police officers that now is not the time to be closing police cells?

David Cameron: It is very important that we have a good network of police cells in our towns and cities, so that officers do not have to drive for miles after making an arrest. That is why cutting some of the paperwork and bureaucracy that has led to some of the cell closures is so important.

Ben Wallace: Too many times recently, we have seen the Metropolitan police force try to straddle its two main functions: leading specialist national operations and policing London. When the dust settles, will the Prime Minister consider the merits of the case for splitting the Met to ensure that we have a police force for London focusing on public order and low-level criminality, and perhaps an enhanced agency for specialist national operations?

David Cameron: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but with a year to go to the Olympics, I think that sort of major structural change to the Metropolitan Police Service simply would not be right.

Ian Lucas: The criminal justice system in north Wales coped admirably with civil disturbances in Wrexham in 2003 for two reasons: there was good use of CCTV evidence and immediate imposition
	of stiff custodial sentences. Why is the Prime Minister presiding over a Government who are making both those things more difficult?

David Cameron: We are not.

Tom Brake: Following these disturbances, does the Prime Minister think that the public will believe that now is the right time to spend £150 million on elections for elected police and crime commissioners?

David Cameron: I think that when people think about the events of recent days, they will conclude that police authorities, which have been relatively invisible and which I do not believe call the police to account, have not done a good job over the years. I think that having an individual to whom the police are accountable, which is what happens in London, is a far more powerful way to make sure that there is a proper conversation between elected individuals and police chiefs.

Kerry McCarthy: Given that we have had a year of social unrest, from the student protests and direct action against the cuts to the looting of the past few days, as well as the riots in Bristol a couple of months ago, all of which have put pressure on our police forces, I urge the Prime Minister to listen to the chair of my local police authority, who wrote to me overnight to say the last thing the authority needs at the moment is the disruption and distraction of elections for police commissioners.

David Cameron: Of course police authorities do not welcome the fact that they are being replaced, but I think that it is right that they are being replaced, because they have not done a good job at calling police chiefs and police forces to account. We need a new system for doing just that.

Damian Collins: The Prime Minister was right to say that the riots not only appalled all law-abiding people in this country, but shocked people watching around the world. In the light of the riots, will the Government be prepared to review the policing arrangements during the Olympic games period, when understandably the police in London and in my own force in Kent will be highly committed?

David Cameron: We believe that we have good security measures in place for the Olympic games. We keep them under review. There will be very intense meetings from the autumn onwards to the Olympic games, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to make sure that we do everything possible to make the games not only a success, but a safe success.

Emma Reynolds: As the Prime Minister is aware, businesses in Wolverhampton bore the brunt of the criminal activity on Tuesday night. I am sure he will agree that now is the time for Members across the political divide to come and work together. I say gently to him that next time he arrives at the train station in Wolverhampton, I will be there ready to welcome him. With regard to what he said to gangs, can he reassure me and my constituents that as well as looking at punitive measures, he will look
	at measures and perhaps additional resources to strengthen community organisations, which are well placed to reach out to young people to stop them joining gangs in the first place?

David Cameron: I am sorry I missed the hon. Lady in Wolverhampton yesterday and I will try and make up for that in future. I met the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), however, the former Trade and Industry Minister, who is no longer in his place, so it was not any party issue. The hon. Lady makes a good point about what local government can do with voluntary bodies to thicken society in our constituencies, and I applaud that wherever it takes place.

Robin Walker: In addition to providing substantial mutual aid to the west midlands police force and keeping up numbers on the streets of Worcester, the West Mercia police have made a number of arrests in the past few days for inciting public disorder through social media. Will the Prime Minister join me in commending that front-footed, proactive policing approach, but also make sure that the police and the courts have the powers that they need to pursue not just the perpetrators, but the organisers and inciters of this criminal violence?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have to make sure that people who use this new technology for evil purposes are properly prosecuted and convicted, and I am sure they will be.

Natascha Engel: One of the ways in which ordinary people are trying to get their voices heard is by going on to the Government’s new e-petitions website and signing a petition that was posted only two days ago, which has already got up to almost 100,000 signatures asking for the rioters to have their benefits withdrawn. How will the Prime Minister meet those raised expectations and say to the 100,000 people who have signed that e-petition that something will happen as a result of visiting a Government-sponsored website?

David Cameron: One of the points of the new e-petitions website is to make sure that if a certain level of signatures is reached, the matter will be debated in the House, whether we like it or not. That is an important way of empowering people. There may be opportunities, possibly through the new criminal justice and sentencing legislation, to make sure that we are better at confiscating things from people when they commit crimes. We must look at all the ways we can of making sure that our punishments are robust.

Sarah Wollaston: As a former police surgeon, I have personally witnessed the great professionalism of our police forces in the face of extreme provocation. This week they have faced extreme violence as well. At all times they have been identifiable and therefore accountable. Is it time for us to make it an offence for anybody involved in rioting and demonstrating to cover their faces, so that they too can be both identifiable and accountable?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady makes an important point. In my statement I said that we would extend the power that the police have—at present they can do it
	only in limited circumstances with limited people—so that they have a more blanket power of insisting that people remove face masks.

Lilian Greenwood: People in Nottingham are understandably shocked and very frightened by some appalling incidents in some parts of our city on Monday and Tuesday nights. I want to pay tribute to Nottinghamshire police for bringing the situation under control and arresting those responsible. What plans does the Prime Minister have to meet residents and community leaders in Nottingham to listen to their concerns and hear what they believe needs to be done to learn the lessons of recent days?

David Cameron: It is important that Ministers make a number of visits, as I have been doing over recent days and will do over coming days. I think the Deputy Prime Minister has plans to visit Nottingham very shortly. I do not have plans to do so at present, but I will be trying to get to as many parts of the country as I can.

Julian Brazier: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, in particular his comments on more robust policing and more tools being made available to the police. May I urge on him the fact that for police officers and their commanders in particular to be willing to take greater risks rather than have their men stand by entails recognising that sometimes those actions will have grave unforeseen consequences? Police commanders need to be supported then.

David Cameron: We must always back the police when they do the right thing. Much has been said about the police, police tactics and so on. Every year I attend—I know the leader of the Labour party also goes—the police bravery awards. There one sees police officers who have done extraordinary things—confronting people with guns and knives when they do not even have any body armour. So let it be on the record in the House that individual officers do incredibly brave things every day, and we praise them for it.

John Cryer: It actually took four nights, not two nights, to put 16,000 police officers on the streets of London. That put businesses and people in danger, including my constituents. So far I have not heard a convincing explanation as to why that took so long. Can the Prime Minister give one?

David Cameron: In the end, the deployment and the numbers are an issue for the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and that is a question that he will have to answer. It was a different situation Sunday night to Monday night to Tuesday night. We must look at that in finding the answer. The point that I was making is that it is possible to surge. The police demonstrated that that was possible, but we needed to surge more quickly.

John Hemming: The Prime Minister shares my concern about the children on the streets and the importance of parental responsibility and parental discipline. Does he share my concern that certain parents say that the public institutions from time to time undermine parental authority, and that that issue needs to be looked at as well?

David Cameron: I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, we should test Government policy by whether it improves responsibility or undermines it.

John McDonnell: I regret the response that the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), but I thank him for the words of tribute that he paid to firefighters. As the secretary of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group, may I ask him whether the commitment that he has given to police authorities to stand by any additional costs applies to fire authorities as well? A thousand firefighter posts have been cut over the past year and there are real concerns about overstretch.

David Cameron: The point that I was making about the police is that they have to stand behind the Riot (Damages) Act. That is why it is important that the Home Office stands behind them. It is not an analogous situation to that of the fire brigade.

John Glen: The Prime Minister rightly identified new and unique threats that the police have faced in recent days. What new and unique solutions does he think will be necessary to deal with the underlying causes of this social unrest?

David Cameron: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, the police themselves will want to review what happened when there were large numbers of different groups looting in different parts of the country at the same time. They will want to work out how to address that—what tactics are needed and how to make sure they get arrests made more quickly—and the Home Office will want to work with them in that endeavour.

Hugh Bayley: In North Yorkshire, public order officers have been sent to London, Birmingham and Manchester. The consequence has been that all rest days have been cancelled. Police officers are now working 12 hours on, 12 hours off around the clock, and there is no more fat to cut. Will the Prime Minister give the House an estimate of how much in Bellwin money, Riot (Damages) Act money and other compensation the public purse will have to pay out? Would it not make sense in future years to spend that money on the police instead of on paying for the cost of disorder?

David Cameron: I cannot give an estimate of what will be paid out under Bellwin or under the schemes that we have established today because that will depend on the demand that comes from local authorities, but there is a huge amount of money and resources available. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s idea that somehow if we had spent more on the police this year, that would have prevented the disorder that took place. The causation is entirely the wrong way around.

George Freeman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the outbreak of mob rule this week has been incubating during a decade of irresponsibility across our society in banking, football, media and, dare I say it, in politics and the welfare state? We are witnessing the consequences of a politically correct, debt-fuelled, anything-goes consumerist culture. Far from the debt crisis being the cause of this criminality, it is a vital
	opportunity for us to wean our young people off a shallow celebrity culture and restore some old-fashioned virtues of thrift, personal responsibility and respect for the law.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes some important points about the culture that has grown up, which people will want to consider in the coming days.

Chris Bryant: I commend the Prime Minister on being extremely reluctant to send in the troops, because when the troops were sent into Tonypandy by a Liberal Home Secretary 100 years ago to try to deal with the riots there they made the situation worse rather than better. But does not that place all the more emphasis on ensuring that there are enough people in police uniforms on the street able to do a robust job? He commends Welsh police forces for sending people down to London, but in the next four years we will have 1,200 fewer police officers in Wales and it will be more difficult for us to help London out.

David Cameron: In Wales, as in England, there are opportunities to get officers out from desk jobs, HR jobs and IT jobs. Opposition Members shake their heads. That is what is so hopeless about them—a sense that there is no reform that can be made to try to get better value for money. That is why, frankly, the country is not listening to them.

David Morris: Will the Prime Minister share with me his gratitude to Lancashire police for sending 76 police officers to help out in London, and will he convey to the Opposition that, at my insistence 12 months ago, they found a way of keeping their PCSOs, preventing two of my constituents from fuelling violence and rioting in my constituency and in Lancaster?

David Cameron: I certainly pay tribute to the Lancashire force, as to other forces who acted quickly under the PNICC system to make forces available in London, Manchester or the west midlands where they were most needed.

Jack Dromey: Following the tragic killing of three young men in Birmingham, the city faced its most dangerous moment in a decade. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to our brave police, under the inspirational leadership of Chief Constable Chris Sims, and all that is best in our community, Tarik Jahan and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), who acted to hold the community together so that Birmingham could say with one voice, “We will not be divided”?

David Cameron: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. I was extremely impressed when I went to the West Midlands control centre and saw that Chris Sims was spending as much of his time on meeting and talking with community leaders and representatives as he was on planning to ensure that there were the right number of police on the streets throughout the west midlands. It was very impressive. It showed the community coming together. Birmingham city council played a big role as well, and I pay tribute to all those who did a model job.

Jo Johnson: Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the 1,300 voluntary special constables who played a vital part in restoring calm in the capital on Tuesday? Will he also take note that many special constables, including one in my constituency, Orpington, struggled to secure permission from their employer to enable them to take part in the surge effort, which was eventually so successful?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There has recently been a growth in specials in some forces and that is hugely welcome, but we need employers to show a sense of social responsibility to release them rapidly for service when they are needed.

Simon Danczuk: I welcome the £20 million fund for high street businesses, but the problem is that 48,000 retailers have been directly or indirectly affected by the riots. Is the fund enough, and how will it work?

David Cameron: The £20 million fund is available from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but there is also the Riot (Damages) Act, which dates back to 1886 and may be another measure that the Liberals were responsible for, which enables businesses that have been affected by riot to claim the money from the police service, which the Home Office can stand behind.

Mary Macleod: As a London MP, I was shocked and horrified by the scenes of criminality, violence and looting that took place in this great city of ours during the last week. What was evident was the complete lack of respect and discipline among those who did it. Will the Prime Minister reassure the House that he will work closely with schools to make sure that we can improve this for the future?

David Cameron: I will certainly do that. In the task of trying to make a more responsible society where people live up to their responsibilities, schools will play a major part.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I remind the House that Members who were not here at the start of the statement should not now be standing in the expectation of being called.

Ian Davidson: Scottish police assisting their English colleagues is part of the benefit of the Union, but why is it that from the beginning of the riot the Government have given the impression of being behind the curve, always paying catch-up, doing too little, too late? Is there not more than a whiff of incompetence?

David Cameron: Of course, I do not accept that, but I do accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the Union. It is important that forces come to each other’s aid, and if there were problems in Scotland, English forces would do the same thing.

Daniel Kawczynski: Many of my constituents in Shrewsbury have watched in horror the events in some of our cities, and they have
	written to me overwhelmingly to ask when we will have tangible and enforceable penalties for parents who do not discipline their children.

David Cameron: As I said earlier, there are parenting orders. They can be used, they can involve parents paying quite hefty fines, and I very much encourage their use at this time.

Helen Jones: The Prime Minister is quite right that our first duty is to ensure that people are safe and to bring criminals to justice, but when that has been done there are serious issues to be considered, not only about policing, but about employment and education, the values we transmit as a society and the direction in which we are going. These cannot be considered by one Select Committee, so will he rethink his view on setting up a commission of inquiry into what lies behind these riots, so that we will ensure that they are never repeated?

David Cameron: As I said earlier, this is only a week from the very starting event that triggered the process, so having a Home Affairs Committee inquiry to start with is right. The hon. Lady mentions the economic circumstances, but I checked this morning and in a three-mile radius from Tottenham more than 1,300 apprenticeships are available for young people. That is yet another example of attempts to try to link this to economic circumstances or to try to find some excuse for it, which is completely wrong.

Tessa Munt: The film and print media have shown us footage and photographs of incidents such as people torching shops and they have interviewed looters and rioters. They would say that we have a right to information, but they should recognise that they also have a duty and responsibility, as members of society, not just spectators, to report what they see to the authorities. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether reporters have called the police at the time they saw these things happening, whether the media have handed over their film and recordings, and whether that evidence will be accepted in our courts of law?

David Cameron: I cannot give the hon. Lady that assurance. What I can say is that media organisations, like others, have responsibilities and should act on those responsibilities. That sort of evidence can be admissible in a court of law.

Gareth Thomas: I join the Prime Minister in praising the police, particularly those in Harrow, who earlier this week successfully prevented disorder from breaking out, but may I take this opportunity to point out to him that decisions taken by the Mayor of London are already leading to police sergeant posts being axed in my constituency and that a valuable local police station is set to close as a result of those decisions? May I therefore add my voice to those urging him to think again about police budgets?

David Cameron: I can only repeat that there are 32,000 officers in the Met and there is a perfect capability to surge that number of officers when necessary. I do not believe that the sort of reductions in budgets that are planned over the next four years should lead to any
	reduction in visible policing, whether in London or elsewhere. There are police officers working in IT, HR and desk jobs that can be civilianised so that police can be released for the front line. Because the Government are taking difficult decisions about police pay and allowances, we will not have to make the reductions in police numbers that the cuts proposed by the Labour party would have meant.

Andrew Stephenson: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) in paying tribute to Lancashire police, who did not just send officers down to London but also sent officers to support Greater Manchester police. Following the arrest of a 25-year-old in Nelson in my constituency for inciting people via Facebook, will the Prime Minister say more about what is being done to ensure that social networks are used as a force for good rather than for evil?

David Cameron: The Home Secretary is going to have meetings with some of those organisations, but even before that they should recognise their own social responsibilities and stop broadcasting the images if they are inappropriate.

Kate Green: Like many others, I was shocked by the extreme youth of some of those perpetrating the criminal activity earlier this week, but children who are engaged in criminal activity are also children in need. Can the Prime Minister confirm that our youth offending services will be properly equipped and supported to provide the multi-agency interventions that are needed to redirect those young people from a future of crime?

David Cameron: Yes, I can. We are making changes to the youth justice system, but that is really to incorporate it within the Ministry of Justice, where I think we will be able to make it more efficient and work better.

Rehman Chishti: The Prime Minister attracted enormous criticism years ago when, as Leader of the Opposition, he made a speech tackling the consequences of family and societal breakdown. I urge him to return to these themes; he was right then and he is right now. I also ask him to congratulate Kent police on their excellent work in making our streets safe. On Monday night, youths from London came to Gillingham to try to set businesses alight, but they were detected, prevented from doing so and put before the courts within 24 hours.

David Cameron: I certainly pay tribute to the Kent police force, which does such a good job. My hon. Friend referred to a speech I made about the importance of addressing the problems of family breakdown and irresponsibility. These things are not easy things for politicians to talk about, because our families can also break down and we fail on many occasions, but it is too important a subject to ignore.

Frank Dobson: We all welcome the Prime Minister’s praise for the individual police officers, firefighters and ambulance and emergency staff. Will he now follow up his warm words with warm action and abandon his proposals to undermine the pension arrangements of those self same firefighters, ambulance staff and policemen?

David Cameron: We are taking action on the advice of Lord Hutton, the former Labour Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who has written a very good report. He makes certain exceptions for uniformed services. It is a very sensible report that I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will study.

Greg Mulholland: One of the many abhorrent aspects of the recent disorder was the threat of violence against our brave firefighters, and yet the relevant legislation is insufficiently clear. There is no specific offence of threatening a firefighter and the Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act 2006 allows for only a £5,000 fine. Considering that the firefighters are defending not only homes and business, but lives, is it not now time to revisit this and make an appropriate and strong custodial sentence the presumption?

David Cameron: When we hear about people attacking firefighters who are trying to put out fires, it is absolutely appalling and unforgiveable that that can happen in our country. I know that the issue of giving specific public servants specific protection has been looked at in the past in criminal justice legislation and I dare say that we can look at it again, but I think that any court using its discretion and judgment would want to give a pretty exemplary sentence to anyone viciously minded enough to attack a firefighter when they are trying to put out a fire.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. Notwithstanding the very heavy taxation of the Prime Minister’s knee muscles, I am inclined to continue and accommodate the remaining Members who wish to contribute, but I urge colleagues to help me to help them by being brief.

David Anderson: I was genuinely saddened to hear the Prime Minister’s response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) on the proposal to evict the people responsible for this damage from social housing. Some of us from the communities that have been on the receiving end of the damage and seen stable communities destroyed by these acts really know what we are talking about, so may I ask the Prime Minister to think about this and engage with us before pursuing the matter?

David Cameron: Perhaps I can arrange for the Minister for Housing and Local Government, who has worked very hard to deliver this policy, to contact the hon. Gentleman. If people in social housing behave appallingly, it should be possible to evict them and keep them evicted.

Greg Hands: My constituents have also been victims of some of the disorder in recent days and strongly welcome the much tougher policing that has been launched since Monday night. The Prime Minister mentioned Bill Bratton, who has done such fantastic work in reducing crime in Boston, New York and Los Angeles. Can he mention some of the things that we might be able to learn from the excellent beat and street policing that has been used in many cities in the United States for the past 17 years?

David Cameron: This work that is done in the United States is also done in the United Kingdom. One thing we can do is just work harder to map and understand how many gangs there are, what their membership is and what they are doing so that we have better intelligence, but I am sure that there will be many things I can discuss with Bill Bratton when he comes to meet me shortly.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Prime Minister said he did not want a sterile debate on resources, which I do not think any of us wants, but there is a division of views on whether there are sufficient police available to deal with this. I would like to praise the police in my constituency for the way they helped to avoid these events affecting Slough. If he is right that there are absolutely sufficient numbers of police, perhaps he would agree to ensure that we have a regular report to Parliament telling us how many police are available and how many are trained to deal with riots so that we can know the real facts.

David Cameron: I would welcome that, because the point is that the police availability figure today is only 12% of police officers on the beat at any one time. The hon. Lady, like me, is a Thames valley MP, so let me just repeat what Chief Constable Sara Thornton of Thames Valley police said, which is that
	“what I haven’t done at all is reduce the number of officers who do the patrol functions, so the officers you see in vehicles, on foot, in uniform, on bicycles. We haven’t cut those numbers at all.”
	We have not cut the number of officers or police community support officers in neighbourhood policing teams either. Thames Valley is a big force, and as the hon. Lady and I have sometimes argued against previous Governments, it is not always a very well funded force. If it can do it with these budget reductions, other forces can do it too.

Jack Lopresti: Will elected police commissioners have the power to authorise the use of water cannon, troop support and such measures, or will they have to let others further up the chain of command make those decisions?

David Cameron: Those decisions must always be an operational matter for the chief constable. Let us be clear—I do not think that the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) fully understood this—that we are talking not about electing chief constables, but about electing commissioners who will replace the police authorities and to whom the chief constable will be accountable.

Mary Glindon: As my constituents witnessed the terrible events across the country and members of our own Northumbria police force were deployed to the capital, can the Prime Minister tell them how, by pressing ahead with huge public sector cuts, he will sustain their confidence in the capacity of all the public services that are meant to protect them?

David Cameron: Perhaps the hon. Lady should stay for the next statement, in which we will hear about the difficult decisions we have had to take in this country in order to keep our credit rating and have low interest rates so that we can get our economy growing. We now have lower interest rates than almost any other country
	in Europe. Why? It is because we are taking these difficult decisions. If we do not take the difficult decisions, we will end up like other countries with rising interest rates, lack of confidence and, as in the United States, which has the biggest economy of all, a debt downgrade.

Karl McCartney: It is my understanding that public order training for police officers was reduced back in 2005. Does my right hon. Friend believe, as I do, that that might have exacerbated some of the instances that so annoyed the public who have watched the pictures on TV in the past few days, and would he like to see that trend reversed if it has not been already?

David Cameron: There will be lessons to learn about the extent of riot training and the balance between it and ordinary beat-based policing, and I know that we will want to learn all those lessons in the days to come.

Julie Hilling: The Association of Chief Police Officers undertook research that showed that where there is a well-funded youth service there is a decrease in criminality and where there are cuts in youth services there is an increase in crime. Youth work is part of a solution to this disorder, but youth workers are being made redundant across the country as we speak. Will the Prime Minister introduce a moratorium on youth service cuts?

David Cameron: We are going ahead with the Myplace youth centre programme, which is seeing vast and very well-funded youth centres built in places such as Islington and Hackney and across some of the most deprived parts of London. I do not accept the hon. Lady’s point about causation and that somehow a budget change in youth services leads inexorably to the sort of looting and rioting we saw on our streets.

Mark Pawsey: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his diligence and energy in remaining at the Dispatch Box for two and a half hours and welcome the measures he is bringing forward to compensate victims of the mindless violence we have seen? One group with concerns are people who own vehicles that have been torched by thugs and who have only third-party insurance. Will he provide some comfort to those innocent victims?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for what he says about these long sessions at the Dispatch Box; I am beginning to get used to them. Uninsured businesses are able to claim under the Riot (Damages) Act. That is what the Act is there for, and, as I have said, the Home Office will want to stand behind police forces that are adversely affected by it.

John Woodcock: If the Prime Minister now wants to extend the previous Labour Government’s legislation to restrict gang members’ wearing of masks, will he explain why he opposed the measures at the time and allowed the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), now the Attorney-General, to describe them as
	“practically unworkable and legally dubious gimmicks”?

David Cameron: Now that my right hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, is sitting on this side of the House and working so hard, he will make them workable.

Michael Ellis: This week saw the busiest night for the London fire brigade since the blitz in terms of the number of fires in one night. Will the Prime Minister join me in commending the brave and dedicated public service that firefighters provide throughout this country, and in thanking police officers, including dozens from Northamptonshire police, who left their force areas to help other forces that were in need of assistance?

David Cameron: I certainly praise Northamptonshire police, but I praise again the firefighters in London and elsewhere who did such magnificent work. I was told one story of a woman firefighter who was on her way to work when a rioter pushed her off her moped and took it away, but instead of going home she just called a taxi, appeared for work and got on with fighting fires in London. It is that sort of spirit that we should praise in the House today.

Mike Weatherley: As chair of the all-party group on retail and business crime, I can tell the Prime Minister that retailers’ biggest concern is lenient sentences. Will he assure them that sentencing terms will increase, and will he come along to the group’s next meeting on 8 September to advise us of the progress on that since this debate?

David Cameron: I might want to send the Business Secretary, or someone from the Business Department, to that meeting, but my hon. Friend makes a very important point that businesses want not only to see the people who perpetrated the looting prosecuted and convicted, but to work even more closely with the police to protect their premises. I have heard that from many businesses, and from multiple chains, some of which had their stores attacked in many different places on the same day.

Stephen Hammond: I commend the Prime Minister for his statement and his comments about social media. The criminal elements who visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) were due to come to Wimbledon on Tuesday night, having been urged to do so via social networking sites. Only the boarding up of the town centre and the surge of which my right hon. Friend spoke stopped them. May I urge the group that he has set up to look at, and to ask Ofcom to look at, the possibility of introducing variants to licences and temporary prohibition on a public order basis?

David Cameron: We will certainly do that. What method we use is less important than the intent of looking at ways to ensure that, if social media are used for violent purposes, we are able to intervene.

Marcus Jones: I join right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House who have commended the brave work of West Midlands police officers. Will the Prime Minister join me in commending
	the brave work of Warwickshire officers, who have also given mutual aid, and will he tell us whether the Government will compensate smaller forces, such as Warwickshire, for that work?

David Cameron: This is how the system works. ACPO has established the police national information co-ordination centre, or PNICC, through which forces work together to make sure that officers get to the places where they are needed, and we should allow those arrangements to work.

Graham Evans: Does the Prime Minister agree that those who are convicted, those who have tried to destroy our society, should not receive the benefits of our society?

David Cameron: I think my hon. Friend refers to the petition that is gathering signatures, and, as I have said, we should look at additional powers to ensure not only that we confiscate things from people who have committed crimes, but that the punishments that they receive, whether prison or not, are robust.

Bob Stewart: When Mark Duggan was shot last week, the IPCC immediately went in and sealed the crime scene, but then no statement was made, and that gave an excuse to the rioters. It would be good if the IPCC, or someone, could make a definitive statement on what happened. Otherwise, conspiracy theories build up.

David Cameron: The difficulty with my hon. Friend’s suggestion is that the IPCC has got to get across the detail before it makes a statement. There is a huge danger on such occasions of making statements that turn out not to be true and that inflame passions either at the time or afterwards when their veracity is questioned. This is an extremely difficult situation, but we must have confidence and faith in the IPCC system, which is independent of the police and can, therefore, give victims confidence.

Paul Uppal: I, too, thank the Prime Minister for coming to Wolverhampton yesterday, and I particularly welcome the initiative on planning. Yesterday evening I was with a community TV station on the Dudley road, and I heard with my own ears the brave, stoical and wise words of Tariq Jahan. I also spoke to about half a dozen young Muslim men, who said to me quite directly, “You will not stem this tide of irresponsibility unless the House speaks with one voice. It is important that the issue is not hijacked for political point-scoring.” Does my right hon. Friend concur with that view?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for organising that cross-party meeting in Wolverhampton, and I pay tribute to him for the wise words that he spoke in his community yesterday, and for his efforts to bring people together in Wolverhampton. Let me praise Sangat TV, which helped the police to catch a criminal. That was an exercise in social responsibility by a media company. It should be praised, and so should he.

Edward Timpson: Many Crewe and Nantwich residents have told me of how appalled they have been by the despicable scenes that have been played out on our streets, and by the
	potential cost to them as taxpayers. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to thank Cheshire police for their role in related arrests, and to reassure my law-abiding constituents that they will not pay the price for the wanton criminality of others?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Cheshire police gave help to Greater Manchester police and, I think, to other areas as well. I want to reassure his constituents and people throughout the country that this Government, this House, this Parliament are on the side of the law-abiding. What needs to happen is a process of taking back the streets on behalf of the law-abiding, and of demonstrating to the whole country that the guilty will be punished.

Christopher Pincher: Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the chief constable and officers of Staffordshire police, who not only kept Staffordshire safe but policed Birmingham and Manchester? Mike Cunningham is one other chief constable who believes that he has the resources now and will have in the future to do the job. Will the Prime Minister commend him?

David Cameron: I certainly join my hon. Friend in praising Staffordshire police, who provided assistance to the west midlands. Once again, this demonstrates that small forces can not only do a good job in their local communities, but help out others when they are in need.

Don Foster: Looking to the future, I note that far too many of the people—young and old alike—who were involved in violent and criminal behaviour appear to come from the relatively small number of totally dysfunctional families in this country. Does the Prime Minister agree that work to turn such families around is somewhat piecemeal, involving far too many agencies, too many targets and too much paperwork? Will the Government find ways of targeting resources more effectively?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that. We plan to spend additional money on the 20,000 most troubled families in the country, with more early intervention and much better co-ordination. So often with those families, we find that they have contact after contact with the authorities, but that it is contact with them rather than work to change behaviour and address problems. The problem is manageable. I know that there are 20,000 such families, and there might even be 100,000, but it is still a manageable number which we can deal with during this Parliament.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Two hours and 40 minutes ago the Prime Minister in his statement referred to the British model of policing. My understanding is that that model is policing through and by the public’s consent. Does he accept that he now has the public’s consent in such situations for a police force to rebalance its concerns about individual freedoms with its own freedom to act?

David Cameron: I know that my hon. Friend has been waiting two hours and 50 minutes to say that, but he puts it absolutely beautifully. None of us in the House
	wants to break with the British model, whereby the public are the police and the police are the public. They come from our communities, they are known to us and we know them, and it is a very special thing that we have, but that model has to be refreshed and updated with new tactics, resources and technology, as appropriate, so that it meets new threats. One message of the past few days is that police chiefs should feel that they have the political backing to make the necessary changes to meet new threats. “Don’t be stuck in the old ways of doing things if they are not working”—that will be one of the real lessons that we learn in the coming days.

Aidan Burley: Will the Prime Minister consider the suggestion that anyone who is convicted of rioting and who is not a UK citizen should be deported immediately and barred for life from returning to this country?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are now much better mechanisms to ensure that people who enter the criminal justice system and who do not have a right to be here are removed more quickly.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment to the House over the past 165 minutes, and I thank all 160 colleagues, including the Leader of the Opposition, who have questioned him.

Global Economy

George Osborne: People will be concerned about the turmoil in the world’s financial markets and what it means for economies here and across the globe. I want to update the House on what we are doing to protect Britain from the storm and to help lead a more effective international response to the fundamental causes of this instability.
	As of this morning, after heavy losses yesterday, markets in Asia and Europe are a little calmer, although some are still down. Over the past month, the Dow Jones index has fallen by more than 14%, the French market by 23% and the Nikkei by 11%, and it is striking that the German market has fallen by 24%. Even Chinese equities have fallen by 20% since November. Bank shares in all countries have been hit particularly hard. Many sovereign bond markets have also been exceptionally volatile, with market rates for Italian and Spanish debts soaring before falling back in the past three days.
	Sadly, Britain is not immune to these market movements. In the past month, the FTSE 100 has fallen by 16% and British bank shares have been hit hard. However, while our stock market has fallen like others, there has been one striking difference from many of our European neighbours: the market for our Government bonds has benefited from the global flight to safety. UK gilt yields have come down to about 2.5%—the lowest interest rates in more than 100 years. Earlier this week, the UK’s credit default swap spread, or the price of insuring against a sovereign default, was lower than Germany’s. That is a huge vote of confidence in the credibility of British Government debt and a major source of stability for the British economy at a time of exceptional instability. It is a reminder of the reckless folly of those who said that we were going too far, too fast. We can all now see that their approach would have been too little, too late, with disastrous consequences for Britain.
	It is not hard to identify the recent events that have triggered the latest market falls. There have been weak economic data from the US, including revisions to GDP figures, and the historic downgrade of that country’s credit rating. The crisis of confidence in the ability of eurozone countries to pay their debts has spread, as many feared, from the periphery to major economies such as Italy and Spain. Those events did not come out of the blue and they all have the same root cause—debt. In particular, there is a massive overhang of debt from a decade-long boom, when economic growth was based on unsustainable household borrowing, unrealistic house prices, dangerously high banking leverage and a failure of Governments to put their public finances in order. Unfortunately, the UK was perhaps the most eager participant in that boom, with the most indebted households, the biggest housing bubble, the most over-leveraged banks and the largest budget deficit of them all.
	History teaches us that recoveries from such debt-driven, balance-sheet recessions will always be choppy and difficult, and we warned that that would be the case. The whole world now realises that the huge overhang of debt means that the recovery will take longer and be harder than had been hoped. Markets are waking up to that fact. That is what makes this the most dangerous time for the global economy since 2008. We should be
	realistic about that and set our expectations accordingly. As the Governor of the Bank of England said yesterday and as the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility has noted, the British economy is expected to continue to grow this year. Some 500,000 new private sector jobs have been created in the past 12 months. That is the second highest rate of net job creation in the G7. However, instability across the world and in our main export markets means that, in common with many countries, the expectations for this year’s growth have fallen.
	This is what our response must be. First, we must continue to put our own house in order. I spoke again to Mervyn King yesterday and I confirm that the assessment of the Bank, the Financial Services Authority and the Treasury is that British banks are sufficiently well capitalised and are holding enough liquidity to cope with the current market turbulence. We have in place well developed and well rehearsed contingency plans. We must also continue to implement the fiscal consolidation plans that have brought stability to our bond markets.
	I believe that the events around the world completely vindicate the decision of this coalition Government from the day we took office to get ahead of the curve and deal with this country’s record deficit. While other countries wrestled with paralysed political systems, our coalition Government united behind the swift and decisive action of in-year cuts and the emergency Budget. While other countries struggled to command confidence in their fiscal forecasts, we created the internationally admired and respected independent Office for Budget Responsibility. Those bold steps have made Britain a safe haven in this sovereign debt storm. Our market interest rates have fallen while those of other countries have soared. The very same rating agency that downgraded the United States has taken Britain off the negative watch that we inherited and reaffirmed our triple A status. That market credibility is not some abstract concept; it saves jobs and keeps families in their homes. Families are benefiting from the lowest ever mortgage rates and companies are able to borrow and refinance at historically low rates thanks to the decisions that we have taken.
	Let me make it clear not only to the House of Commons but to the whole world that ours is an absolutely unwavering commitment to fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction. Abandoning that commitment would plunge Britain into the financial whirlpool of a sovereign debt crisis and cost many thousands of jobs. We will not make that mistake.
	Secondly, we need to continue to lead the international response in Europe and beyond. In the G7 statement agreed between Finance Ministers and central bank governors this week, we said that we would
	“take all necessary measures to support financial stability and growth”.
	In the eurozone, there is a growing acceptance of what the UK Government have been saying, first in private and now in public, for the last year—it too needs to get ahead of the curve. Individual countries must deal with their deficits, make their economies more competitive and strengthen their banking systems. Existing eurozone institutions need to do whatever is necessary to maintain stability. We welcome the interventions of the European Central Bank this week through its securities markets programme to do just that.
	However, that can only ever be a bridge to a permanent solution. I have said many times before that the eurozone countries need to accept the remorseless logic of monetary union that leads from a single currency to greater fiscal integration. Many people made exactly that argument more than a decade ago as a reason for Britain staying out of the single currency, and thank God we did. Solutions such as eurobonds and other forms of guarantees now require serious consideration. That must be matched by much more effective economic governance in the eurozone to ensure fiscal responsibility is hard-wired into the system.
	The break-up of the euro would be economically disastrous, including for Britain, so we should accept the need for greater fiscal integration in the eurozone, while ensuring we are not part of it and that our national interests are protected. That is the message the Prime Minister has communicated clearly in his calls with Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy and others this week. I have done likewise with individual Finance Ministers, in ECOFIN and in the G7 call at the weekend, and will do so again at the September ECOFIN and G7 meetings.
	This is a global as well as a European crisis. At this autumn’s meetings of the IMF and the G20 we need far greater progress on global imbalances. We need an international framework that allows creditor countries such as China to increase demand and debtor countries to make the difficult adjustments necessary to repay them. Everyone knows what needs to be done, but progress so far has been frustratingly slow, with lengthy disagreements on technical definitions, let alone any concrete actions. The barriers are political not economic, so it is up to the world’s politicians to overcome them. There are no excuses left.
	The UK, like the rest of the developed world, needs a new model of growth. Surely we have learned now that growth cannot come from yet more debt and more Government spending. Those who spent the whole of the past year telling us to follow the American example, with yet more fiscal stimulus, need to answer this simple question: why has the US economy grown more slowly than the UK economy so far this year? More spending now, paid for by more Government borrowing and higher debt, would lead directly to rising interest rates and falling international confidence, which would kill off the recovery, not support it.
	Instead we must work hard to have a private sector that competes, invests and exports. In today’s world, that is the only route to high-quality jobs and lasting prosperity. In the developed countries, especially in Europe, that means making the difficult structural reforms needed to restore competitiveness and improve the underlying performance of our economies. The EU should cut red tape, not add to it. Internationally, we have the greatest stimulus of all on the table in the form of the Doha round—a renewed commitment to free trade across the world, which should be taken up now.
	Here in Britain, the Plan for Growth that we announced in the Budget set out an ambitious path—23 measures have already been implemented and another 80 are being implemented now. On controversial issues, such as planning reform, we will overcome the opposition that stands in the way of prosperity. On tax, we have already cut our corporation tax by 2p, with three more cuts to come in the next three years. We will continue to pursue a radical agenda in welfare and education reform.
	However, there is much more we can and must do if we are to create a new model of sustainable growth. All of us in the House must rise to that challenge in the months ahead and confront the vested interests—the forces of stagnation that stand in the way of growth.
	In these turbulent times for world markets, we will continue to lead the international response. We will redouble our efforts to remove the obstacles to growth and stick to our plan, which has made Britain a safe haven in the global debt storm. I commend the statement to the House.

Edward Balls: The shocking and inexcusable events of recent days in our cities are today rightly the Government’s first and immediate priority. However, looking ahead, the global economic events of recent days are an equal and perhaps even graver threat to our stability and cohesion, putting small businesses, jobs and mortgages at risk throughout our country. It is therefore right that the Chancellor is today updating the House and the country on the parlous state of the global economy and, I am afraid to say, the parlous state of the British economy.
	In the same spirit of bipartisan co-operation that we have just seen from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, let me set out where Opposition Members agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as well as where we have grave concerns. First, the Chancellor is right: we made the right decision not to join the single currency in 2003. We agree with him that the crisis in the eurozone requires more decisive and radical action than we have seen so far. I welcome the fact that he is now, at last, involving himself in those discussions, and preparing contingency plans if British banks come under threat.
	Tough fiscal decisions in Europe are vital, but is it not clear that the approach of European leaders so far—demanding ever more austerity from smaller countries—is not working because it does nothing to get those economies growing? Without that, countries find it harder and harder to convince the markets that they can repay their debts. Should not the Chancellor finally take a lead in brokering a plan in Europe for growth, alongside European-wide guarantees to reduce debt service costs, and stop the contagion?
	I also agree with the Chancellor that months of political wrangling and uncertainty in the US about the pace of deficit reduction have depressed confidence and US growth. However, does the Chancellor agree with those wise heads who favour a balanced and sensible approach to deficit reduction, and fear that rapid US retrenchment could drive the world back into recession? Or does he agree with his friends—we know he has many in the Republican party and in the Tea party movement—who have urged deeper and faster cuts, and hailed the recent budget deal as delivering 98% of their demands? Is the Chancellor on the side of the Federal Reserve, former Treasury Secretaries and Nobel prize winners, or on that of, in the words of the Business Secretary, “right wing nutters”?
	It is also right that G7 finance Ministers are finally discussing a co-ordinated response to a global crisis. However, listening to the Chancellor’s analysis, one would think that Britain was a bystander, watching public debt crises unfold in the eurozone and America
	that are best solved by individual countries taking their own actions to get debt down—on his analysis, the faster, the better. But the growth crisis is now global.
	Does the Chancellor agree that the coming together of powerful negative forces in every continent, and including in Britain—continued deleveraging by banks and the private sector, drastic tightening of consumer spending and fiscal retrenchment from Governments—now means that some commentators warn that the crisis could become as grave as that of the early 1930s, when Governments around the world ignored their collective responsibility to promote growth, ploughed on with austerity and retrenchment and ushered in a decade of depression, unemployment, protectionism and political instability? Here in Britain, families and businesses, deeply worried about their jobs and mortgages, will hear the Chancellor’s talk of safe havens and conclude that he is either deeply complacent or in complete denial about what is happening in our country.
	Since the Chancellor’s economic policies have started to kick in, well before the latest bout of financial market instability, confidence has collapsed and our economy has flatlined for nine months, growing slower than that of the US and the eurozone. On the latest OBR figures, before growth forecasts—which the Chancellor today confirmed—were to be downgraded yet again, the borrowing forecast was £46 billion higher than the Chancellor planned.
	We need a tough, medium-term plan to get our deficit down, but it is the Chancellor’s reckless—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. I repeat what I have said many times: if Members shout their heads off, then expect to be called, they are suffering from an element of self-delusion.

Edward Balls: The Chancellor’s reckless policies—too far, too fast—have ripped out the house’s foundation and left our economy deeply exposed to the brewing global hurricane. Yet, despite all the evidence and with our stock market falling 10% or more this week, the Chancellor still claims that his policies are working and that we are a safe haven. Despite the evidence of the past two years from credit default swaps and the fact that, in the past week, long-term interest rates have fallen in Britain and in the US, he still claims that falling UK long-term bond yields are a sign of enhanced credibility and not of stagnant growth in our economy. Does he not remember that the Japanese Ministry of Finance briefly took some comfort from low and falling bond yields in the early 1990s, at the beginning of a lost decade of no growth and stagnation? However many times he says that his plan is working, that does not make it true. However, many times he claims that he has restored confidence or delivered on deficit reduction, that does not make it true.
	We know that the Chancellor has spent the past fortnight in Hollywood, but he cannot just write the script and watch it come to life. That is not how things work in the real world. If he will not take it from me, perhaps he should hear the words of Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize winner, who said:
	“Britain’s experiment in austerity is going really, really badly. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer is finding solace in… fantasy… the wolf is at the door and Osborne thinks it’s the confidence fairy.”
	The Chancellor finds the state of the British economy reassuring; we find it deeply worrying. He rejects our call for action now, including a temporary VAT cut, and vows to plough on regardless. We say that this approach is deeply incautious and reckless. The eurozone is in crisis. America is in political paralysis. The British economy is flatlining. Global markets are in turmoil. The world desperately needs strong and united leadership. Here in Britain, we need our Chancellor to get out of his complacent denial and get back to reality before it is too late.

George Osborne: I did meet Mickey Mouse in California, and he seems to be writing the Labour party’s economic policy at the moment.
	Let me start with the areas where we agree. We agree that it is right for Britain not to join the euro—perhaps the shadow Chancellor will change the official policy of the Labour party in that respect. On the contingency plans of the financial system, I would be very happy to offer him a briefing from the tripartite authorities on those contingency plans. Obviously, they have to remain confidential, as he will understand, but I am very happy to give him that briefing.
	On what the shadow Chancellor says about European countries being forced to reduce their deficits, I would ask him this question. Who is supposed to be lending those European countries the money that he talks about, in this imaginary world where they are not taking action to reduce their deficits? He voted against the decisions that we took to increase the resources of the IMF, and now he turns round and thinks that there is some magical body or some investors out there who are going to lend money to European countries that do not have credible deficit plans. It is completely for the fairies, as he puts it.
	Let me talk about the US debate, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. He talked about deficit reduction in America and asked where I stand on the measured pace argument. Actually, I agree with the plan that President Obama set out at George Washington university. [ Interruption. ] Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not know what is going on in America at the moment, but actually, the President of the United States has set out a deficit reduction plan that is at the same pace and on the same scale as the one that we are pursuing in Britain. That is what the President has set out; it is his offer in the debate. Indeed, the composition of tax increases and spending reductions that he has put forward is the same as the spending consolidation that we announced last year, and is based on some of the ideas put forward by the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission, which we spoke to after the event. It said that it looked to the UK for inspiration for some of its ideas.
	The shadow Chancellor says that there is a global economic crisis. He is right about that, and we agree, but it is caused by an enormous debt overhang. That is what all serious economists are saying at the moment. He is also right when he says that the Labour party needs a tough deficit reduction plan. I agree with him about that. Where is this tough deficit reduction plan? We have just spent two and a half hours listening to Labour MP after Labour MP getting up and complaining about spending cuts and the deficit reduction plan—they are all nodding their heads—but where is the tough
	deficit reduction plan that he promised? The shadow Chancellor is now almost alone in the world in making the argument that he makes. He talks about international leadership, but if he turned up at the G7, the IMF, the G20 or ECOFIN with his plans to borrow more and increase our deficit, he would be laughed out of that meeting. He is completely irrelevant to where the international debate has gone. I am afraid that he is living proof of why the public will never again trust the Labour party with their money.

Andrew Tyrie: Does the Chancellor agree that the collapse in the credibility of the eurozone is a warning to any Government who flinch on dealing with the deficit? Is that not why he is quite right to stick to the commitments that he made a year ago to put the country on a course to greater stability? Does he not also agree, however, that the credibility of economic policy in the long run will depend on a fully developed strategy for improving the supply side of the economy? He talked a bit about that at the end of his statement. Can he say a bit more, and say whether he intends to publish a fully worked up improvement to the strategy for growth that he put forward at the time of the last Budget?

George Osborne: I completely agree with what the Chair of the Treasury Committee says about the credibility of the deficit reduction plan and how disastrous it would be in the current environment to weaken that plan. We would—within hours, I think—find ourselves sucked into the global debt whirlpool from which other countries are struggling to get out. I also agree with him that we need to do more to improve the supply side of our economy. That is hard work for Governments, and it means taking on difficult vested interests. We have seen the argument in the last few days about planning controls, where we are trying to make it easier to have economic development, and there are plenty of groups that pop up and oppose that. That is an example of some of the battles that we will have to have and win. I can confirm that we will be producing the second phase of our plan for growth at the time of the autumn forecast.

David Miliband: I would be grateful if the Chancellor could confirm private sector estimates that I have seen that a 0.4% downgrade of the growth forecasts for the next four years means that it will be impossible for him to hit his fiscal target of turning the debt-to-GDP ratio down by the end of this Parliament.

George Osborne: The most recent independent analysis of the British economy was done by the IMF this month. It made an assessment using lower growth forecasts, and came to the conclusion that we will hit both our fiscal mandate and our target for reducing debt, which the IMF made clear in its article IV assessment. I cannot help but note that if the right hon. Gentleman had given the leader’s speech that he had written, the Labour party would be in a much more credible place than it is today.

Malcolm Bruce: As the wolves circle country after country, are this coalition Government not vindicated? They were absolutely right to come together with a robust strategy to bring our public
	finances into balance over the lifetime of this Parliament, while the Labour party lacks credibility. If there is one area where we can ensure that that is done in a fair and equal way which puts the lower and middle-income groups in the driving seat of recovery, it is the accelerated process of increasing the tax threshold, and reducing taxes on those people is the best way to do that.

George Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we are taking more than 1 million low-paid people out of tax altogether, implementing the policy that the Liberal Democrats put forward at the general election. I also agree that what he describes is a vindication not just of the economic decisions we took, but of the political decisions we took. Let us reflect on the fact that a year ago we had a hung Parliament—the first time since the 1970s—and we formed a coalition Government. That was a difficult decision for both political parties involved, but given the political weakness in some other countries, which is driving a lot of the market concern about those countries, the political strength of the Government in Britain is a tribute to both those political parties, which set aside their political differences and came together in the national interest.

Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Chancellor—who persists in this bewildering implausibility that his plan is working—please tell the House by how much this financial year he will fall short of his target for deficit reduction?

George Osborne: The important difference between the hon. Gentleman's time in the Treasury and my time in the Treasury now is that we have the independent Office for Budget Responsibility making those announcements. It is not the Chancellor who makes those announcements at the Dispatch Box, for the very simple reason that by the end of the last Government, those Treasury pronouncements were so discredited that they were believed by absolutely no one. One of the important early decisions that we took to restore credibility in British public finances was the creation of the independent OBR, which makes those announcements.

Tracey Crouch: Will the Chancellor tell the House whether the UK economy is growing faster than the US economy this year, and if so, why?

George Osborne: In the first two quarters of this year the UK has grown more strongly than the United States, but that is not a source of comfort for the world, because we need a strong US economy as well, and we want to help to bring about the international framework that will enable that to happen.

Gordon Marsden: Is it not revealing that it took to the end of page 5 of his speech for the Chancellor even stutteringly to mention the word “growth”? Will he now reflect on the fact that it is his reckless abolition of regional development agencies and his failure to put money into the local enterprise partnerships that were supposed to solve the problem that have left the English regions stagnant in growth over the past nine months?

George Osborne: Both the hon. Gentleman and I represent constituencies in the north-west of England, and the striking fact about the RDAs is that during their period of existence regional disparities grew. They did not work in the way that they were supposed to work. Because local enterprise partnerships involve businesses and are on much more practical boundaries, they will help to deliver that local growth. However, if he thinks that all the world’s problems are caused by the fact that we got rid of the RDAs, he is exaggerating his case.

William Cash: The Chancellor will know that our trade balance between 2002 and 2009-10 with the other 26 member states has gone up from minus £14 billion to minus £53 billion in one year? Does he not agree that even Edward Heath would have repudiated and vetoed a fiscal union with a hard-core Europe with such an incredible trade deficit against us? The coalition agreement, according to the latest answer I got from the Prime Minister, determines our relationship with the European Union. Does the Chancellor disagree with the Deputy Prime Minister, because we must have radical renegotiation of the treaties and the repatriation of powers so that we can achieve growth for all our businesses?

Mr Speaker: I enjoy listening to the hon. Gentleman’s words so much that it is in my interest, Parliament’s interest and the national interest that they should be suitably rationed.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend and I will have to agree to disagree on this issue. The remorseless logic of monetary union leads towards fiscal union, and that was one of the reasons that I opposed joining the single currency. However, it is now in our interests to allow that to happen more in the eurozone, because it is in our absolute national economic interest that the eurozone is more stable. It is clear that that means that they need to have more fiscal powers to reduce instability. That means, of course, that Britain must fight hard to ensure that its interests are represented and that we are not part of this fiscal integration. Important decisions, such as on financial services, must continue to be taken at the level of 27. He talks about treaty changes and so on, but the prospect of a major treaty change to bring about eurozone fiscal integration is not imminent, although I imagine that there will be a lively debate if and when it comes about.

Meg Munn: The number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance in my constituency has gone up massively, with hard-working people with good work records unable to find jobs. Why will not the Chancellor look seriously at areas such as mine, do more and take some measures—such as reducing VAT—to put money into the hands of ordinary people?

George Osborne: We have announced an enterprise zone for Sheffield and we will have further announcements to make on enterprise zones in the coming weeks. The evidence of the past 10 years is that in important regions of our country—I have in mind the statistics for the west midlands, rather than the hon. Lady’s constituency —private sector employment fell over the decade before the financial crash. That shows that that model of growth we pursued, based on the biggest housing boom of any country—with the possible exception of Ireland—the
	most over-leveraged banks and the highest budget deficit, ultimately led to ruin. We need a different model of growth in which we grow the private sector in areas such as Sheffield and get real, lasting jobs, rather than assuming that we can just use Government spending to create them.

John Redwood: As someone who believes that we need to get the deficit down and do more to assist growth to help that, will the Chancellor look at the dreadful losses at RBS and the big hit on capital values on its shares, and see what more can be done to manage that colossal pool of assets in the interests of economic growth and the taxpayer?

George Osborne: We of course continue to monitor the situation at RBS and all the British banks very closely. There is a concern in the financial markets about the capitalisation and liquidity provisions of banks in many countries. I have to say that those concerns have not been expressed at the moment about the UK. We passed the stress tests well and we have a strong liquidity provision in place for the banks, including RBS, and the markets can therefore have confidence in British banks.

Michael Meacher: Is it not clear that the Chancellor’s whole strategy is failing, as it is now almost entirely dependent on achieving growth? As the economy has been flatlining for nine months, export markets are stymied, quantitative easing has already been tried with little or no effect and interest rates are already flat on the ground. Where exactly does he expect the growth to come from to get us out of prolonged stagnation?

George Osborne: As I have said, the British economy is growing and it is the assessment of the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility that it will continue to grow. The growth in the last six months has actually been stronger than in the United States, and half a million jobs have been created in the private sector in the last year—

Edward Balls: In the last nine months?

George Osborne: In the past 12 months. So that is all good news. Where does the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) expect the money to come from for additional Government borrowing? Who in the world would lend to a country that abandoned its deficit reduction plan at a time like this, especially a country such as Britain which, unfortunately, has the highest budget deficit in the G20?

Charles Kennedy: Given that we are all still hearing that the banks are not making sufficient funds available to small and medium private enterprises in our constituencies and that that is the fulcrum on which the Government’s strategy has been based to make up the deficit from the loss of jobs in the public sector as a result of the strategy being pursued, and that we now have a downward estimate for growth, what did the Business Secretary mean when he said that we would have to find more imaginative ways of getting the money through? What did he mean by that and does the Chancellor agree?

George Osborne: The challenge that we and many developed countries face is that banks are shrinking their balance sheets, because they got too big and they lent too much money. They are also hoarding capital because of the current market turbulence. What we are trying to do as a Government is to ensure that, in that process, lending to small and medium businesses is protected and indeed increased. We signed the Merlin agreement with the banks at the beginning of the year to see an increase of 15% in small business lending. The Bank of England will publish the figures tomorrow, so I cannot give them today, but the banks have already indicated that they are on track to meet that 15% increase in small business lending over this year and I am confident that the figures tomorrow will show that that is the case.

Stewart Hosie: The June 2010 Budget described the deficit reduction plan as adding £8 billion of tax rises a year from 2014-15 and £32 billion of cuts from 2014-15 every year on top of the £73 billion or so fiscal consolidation that Labour had in mind. It also forecast growth from this year of 2.3%, 2.8%, 2.9%, 2.7% and 2.7%. Those growth figures are now shredded. What will the Chancellor do? Will he increase taxes or cut public spending further, or did he mean by saying that we had to adjust our expectations accordingly that he would change his deficit reduction target?

George Osborne: We are not proposing for a second to change our deficit reduction target. The target is a structural budget deficit target and was deliberately set as such. The reason we set out those plans in the emergency Budget and went beyond the previous Government’s mantra of halving the budget deficit in four years—not that they had actually written in the proposals to do that—was because on the day we came into office our country’s credit rating was on a negative outlook for a downgrade. Our market interest rates were tracking Spain’s and everyone from the Governor of the Bank of England to the IMF and the CBI was saying that the previous Government’s budget deficit plan was not credible. If we had stuck with that plan and even filled in the blank spaces, we would now be part of the sovereign debt crisis whirlwind that is engulfing other countries.

Michael Fallon: Before there is any further attempt to rewrite history, can the Chancellor confirm again that until last year’s emergency Budget and spending plan this country’s triple A rating was on negative outlook and was only restored to stable through the measures he took last year? Is not the real lesson of the United States that any country that goes off its fiscal deficit reduction plan can suffer a downgrade, with all the damage to jobs and prosperity that that entails?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In January last year the largest bond investor in the world said that UK gilts
	“are resting on a bed of nitroglycerine.”
	Today I could read out a whole string of comments from market participants saying that the UK has been a safe haven in this sovereign debt crisis because of the decisions that we took.
	Standard & Poor’s, the rating agency that has just downgraded the United States, took the United Kingdom off “negative outlook” and reaffirmed our triple A credit rating. The practical consequence of that is much lower interest rates. If we pursued the policy proposed by the Opposition of more spending and more debt, the immediate response would be higher interest rates which would kill off any recovery. That is why such a policy is economic madness.

Alison McGovern: Given poor and worsening United Kingdom growth, at what point will the Chancellor advocate further quantitative easing? If he will not answer that question, will he tell us whether he believes that there is no chance that rapidly rising sterling will hurt our exports?

George Osborne: Both those matters are properly for the Bank of England. It is for the Governor to comment on the value of sterling, if he chooses to do so. As for quantitative easing, the arrangements agreed by the last Government, which I have retained, remain in place. If the Monetary Policy Committee makes a serious request, of course we will consider it seriously, but we have received no such request.

Sarah Newton: Moneyfacts reported yesterday that the low cost of borrowing in the United Kingdom means that, on average, five-year fixed-term mortgages are now £1,400 cheaper than they were two years ago. That is very welcome news for my hard-working but squeezed constituents. Will the Chancellor confirm that he will continue his policies, which will deliver the low interest rates that are so important to families and businesses across the country?

George Osborne: Absolutely. I think that interest rates are often the missing part of the debate in the Chamber. It is simply economically impossible at the moment for the Opposition to have more spending, more debt, and low interest rates. Those things do not square in the current global economic environment. The automatic, immediate response from the market, and quite possibly from the Monetary Policy Committee, would be an increase in interest rates if the Opposition abandoned our fiscal plans. We would have higher interest rates that would kill off any recovery.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I appeal to colleagues to ask single, short supplementary questions without preamble, so that we can maximise the number of contributors.

Kelvin Hopkins: The frightening instability of the world economy has arisen since, and as a result of, the abandoning of the post-war arrangements decided at Bretton Woods, and the liberalisation and globalisation of finance capital. Part of that arrangement was that each country had its own currency and managed its own economy within international rules. Would it not be sensible to move back in that direction by establishing national currencies within the eurozone and starting again where we left off?

George Osborne: We abandoned the Bretton Woods arrangements in the early 1970s, so it has been a while since we have operated under those international arrangements. Let me, however, make a few observations, because the hon. Gentleman has made a serious point about the eurozone.
	I think that it would be disastrous for Britain’s economy if the eurozone were to break up, and I think that it would also be disastrous for the economies of the eurozone themselves. It would lead immediately to a balance of payments crisis in many European countries. That is why it is in our interests for the eurozone to work. Some of us questioned whether it was right to go ahead with it 15 years ago—we certainly did not want Britain to be part of it—but it exists now, and, as I have said before, “I told you so” is not an economic policy for today.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need better international arrangements to monitor and deal with global imbalances. For instance, there are currently huge creditor countries such as China, and big debtor countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States. I am afraid that progress on that at the G20 and the International Monetary Fund is painfully slow. At some of the meetings, it has not even been possible to agree on the definitions. I hope that, if there is a silver lining to the present black cloud of the financial market crisis, we will see at the autumn meetings of the various institutions much more progress towards the arrangements that I think everyone accepts should be in place.

Alun Cairns: I congratulate the Chancellor on the deficit reduction programme that has secured the United Kingdom’s triple A rating, but can he tell us what analysis he has made of the rising price of gold, and how much better off the UK economy would be if the last Government had not sold off our gold in the same way?

George Osborne: I expected that that question might arise, as it often does at Treasury events. As people will have seen, the price of gold has hit a record high of $1,800. It was $300 when the shadow Chancellor sold our gold stocks. As a result of that action, this country has lost £12 billion.

Stuart Bell: The House will have noted that the Chancellor did not mention the fact that inflation is approaching 5%, the fact that that our borrowing is £46 billion higher than his figure, or the fact that consumer and business confidence is falling. He did mention his growth plan, but there is no growth. When will he accept the paradox that the sharper and deeper the cuts, the less growth there will be?

George Osborne: The question that I would ask the hon. Gentleman is this: who in the world does he expect to be lending money to countries with very high budget deficits if they do not have credible deficit reduction plans? What group of people would put their money on the line? That is precisely the problem that we have at the moment in the global financial markets.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about inflation. Yesterday, at his press conference, the Governor of the Bank of England said that he expected it to hit 5% this year. Let me draw attention to another silver lining to the dark
	clouds. Commodity prices have fallen in the last few weeks, and the oil price has fallen somewhat from its high. One of the biggest challenges that all developed and, indeed, developing countries have faced in the last year or so has been the very big increase in the oil price.

Brian Binley: I welcome the Chancellor’s comments about the need to cut deficits. Let me also remind him that a healthier market is important to our export performance, and that growth requires buyers and sellers to have the confidence to transact. Will he therefore, while steering the economy, remember that the need to instil demand in the British economy is very important to households and businesses? May I ask him not to lose sight of that?

George Osborne: Of course I agree that we need demand. I think that demand comes partly from confidence, and that confidence comes from economic stability. If we think of the difference between the statement that I have been able to make today in the House of Commons and the emergency statements and emergency budget cuts that many Finance Ministers have had to announce in the last two weeks, we have, in a nutshell, the reason why we made the right decisions last year to get ahead of the curve, and why so many other countries are now trying to catch up.

Valerie Vaz: Can the Chancellor explain how relaxing planning control will stimulate the economy when offices, houses and shops are already standing empty in my constituency?

George Osborne: Of course we need to fill vacant properties, but we also need to allow new development. I think that we all want to protect areas of outstanding natural beauty in our country, and I have a constituency in the green belt, but planning decisions in this country are so lengthy, so bureaucratic and so costly that almost every study of the British economy that has been commissioned in the last decade has identified planning as an obstacle to further economic development. I think that we need to simplify those planning controls so that we can—yes—protect the countryside, but also secure decisions in reasonable time that allow development to take place. That is why we have introduced the presumption of sustainable development into the planning system.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What further help can the Chancellor give small businesses, 4.5 million of which employ fewer than five people? If a quarter of them employed an extra person, that would make a huge dent in the unemployment register.

George Osborne: Small businesses are, of course, the engine of job creation in our country. As I have said, 500,000 new jobs have been created in the private sector over the last year. That is the second highest rate of job creation in the G7. As for specific help for small businesses, we avoided the increase in small business taxation that the Labour party included in its last Budget.

Gavin Shuker: indicated dissent.

George Osborne: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He obviously did not know that there was to be an increase in small business taxation. We have cut it.
	We have also introduced support for the exports of small business. A central part of the strategy developed by Stephen Green as trade Minister is helping small businesses to export. I have already mentioned the Merlin lending agreements with banks, which are beginning to bring about an increase in lending to businesses that simply was not happening last year.

Chris Williamson: In view of the flatlining economy, and given that inflation is set to hit 5%, the spectre of stagflation looms large. Can the Chancellor tell us why he is so wedded to crackpot Tea Party economics when it is plainly failing the country?

George Osborne: It sounds like the shadow Chancellor wrote that question. Let me repeat what I said earlier: the proposal Barack Obama put forward in his speech at The George Washington university is for a deficit reduction in the United States of the same pace and scale as the one we are pursuing in Britain. That is because in America, too, they understand that they have to deal with their budget deficit.

Anne Main: Europe is making increasing demands on our pension pots and our benefit pots and, indeed, it recently made a demand on our VAT. Is it not time that we had a debate on how much we pay towards Europe? The Chancellor says it would be economically disastrous if it broke up, but there should be a debate. Some 75,000 people have signed a Daily Express petition asking for a debate on this, so surely there should be an autumn debate?

George Osborne: We do debate the European budget in this Parliament, and they are often quite lively debates. We are fighting hard for a real-terms freeze in the European budget not just for next year but for the coming new financial perspective from 2014, and we have enlisted a number of allies. There is now an understanding across Europe that, with very tough public expenditure decisions at home in every European country, we also need to get control of the European budget.

Stephen Timms: The momentum for growth in the UK economy has clearly now run out, and I am glad that the Chancellor will make announcements on growth in the autumn. As he plans for them, will he take account of the International Monetary Fund’s view that if there is the prospect of a lengthy period of weak growth ahead, he should be willing to consider temporary tax cuts?

George Osborne: Of course we bear in mind advice from the IMF and others, but it makes it clear that that is not its central view at the moment. It asked itself a specific question, and it says this:
	“The weakness in growth and rise in inflation raises the question whether it is time to adjust macroeconomic policies. The answer is no…Strong fiscal consolidation is underway and remains essential”.
	That is what the IMF says in its article IV report into the United Kingdom published on 1 August this year.

Jeremy Lefroy: Recently, the UK has been the highest per capita exporter of services in the world, and that is vital for future growth. What action are the Government taking to ensure that we can continue to compete globally in services on a level playing field, and particularly in the European Union?

George Osborne: First, while not all the recent economic data have been encouraging, the services index for the United Kingdom in the last couple of weeks was the strongest in Europe, which gives us some cause for optimism in that sector. I agree that we want to maintain our competitiveness, and that we want to export more to Europe. I think Europe’s agenda should be much more about completing the single market and implementing measures like the services directive, which has merely sat on the “Too Difficult to Handle” shelf for far too long. That is the agenda that we need to get the European Union focused on.

Nia Griffith: Last week I visited the Dividers Modernfold factory in my constituency. In common with many other construction products companies throughout the country, it is very worried about the prospects for immediate economic growth, particularly in light of public procurement cuts. What precisely is the Chancellor going to do in the very near future to stimulate demand and growth, so we can create and safeguard jobs in the private sector? We do not want to be fobbed off with the sorts of answers he has just given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and the Chancellor’s party colleague, the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley).

George Osborne: In the spending review, we set higher capital budgets than those set out by my predecessor, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Labour Government. Therefore, capital spending budgets are higher than they would have been under the plan the hon. Lady stood on in the last election.
	On getting the construction sector moving, that is precisely why we are tackling issues, such as the planning delays, that have been so difficult, and why we made a number of tax changes in the Budget to help the construction sector. The construction index was also positive in the last couple of weeks. I just say to the hon. Lady that when we are running the highest budget deficit in the G20, it is not possible to abandon our fiscal consolidation plans and to seek someone out there in the world to borrow more money from. That would lead to markedly higher interest rates—we need only look at the interest rates in Spain and Italy at present—and we know that higher interest rates do particular damage to the construction sector.

Tobias Ellwood: I congratulate the Chancellor on sticking to his deficit reduction plan, which has allowed us to keep our triple A rating, unlike some other countries, including the United States and possibly now France. If France were to lose its triple A rating, what would be the implications for the EU stability fund and the ability for eurozone bail-outs to continue in the future?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend asks a good question, which is being asked in the markets at present. I have to say that one of the causes of the instability in the last couple of weeks has been loose comments by Finance Ministers on issues such as that which he raises, so I will “take the Fifth” and not comment.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer have any concerns about the unaccountable power of the credit rating agencies,
	who, seemingly at a whim, can cause disasters to be visited on small and vulnerable economies, increase interest rates, and lead to public spending cuts and devastation to many poor people’s lives? Does he not think it is time that these rating agencies are brought under some kind of accountable control?

George Osborne: It might surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that I agree with at least part of what he says: we do have concerns about how the credit rating agencies have operated. That is why we have been part of the European discussions to get some European rules on credit rating agencies put in place, and I think they are appropriate. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, however, on blaming all of what is happening on credit rating agencies. However imperfect they might be, credit rating agencies are trying to give market investors some idea of the credit worthiness of countries and companies. The truth is that they have not led to the spending cuts. The reason why we have had to undertake spending cuts is that this country is currently spending close to 50% of GDP on public expenditure, which is far higher than the historical average under Conservative and Labour Governments. That is why we are having to act. We are doing so because we have a record budget deficit—the highest in our peacetime history and the highest in the G20.

Mark Spencer: The Chancellor referred to Merlin and the agreement with the banks, but is he aware that these banks are double-counting their lending by forcing businesses to convert overdrafts into long-term loans? A business in my constituency wants to expand. It has full order books and wants to take on more staff, but it cannot do so because not only are the banks not being helpful, but they are actually being obstructive.

George Osborne: I would be very happy to look at that specific constituency case. Let me look into the details and get back to my hon. Friend with an answer, or meet him in person to discuss it.

Anne Begg: The sluggish growth rate has led the Office for Budget Responsibility to now forecast even higher unemployment. More jobs are being lost in the economy than are being created. The Government’s own policies are adding to that, because they are putting new work obligations on to people who have been out of the work force for some time. While it is absolutely right that the Government help people to find jobs, not all of them will do so. It is very wrong that people who are doing all they can to find work and still have not done so will find they are facing the loss of their benefits. In light of the new growth figures, will the Chancellor speak to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, as the sanctions on these people should be lifted?

George Osborne: First, if I might correct the hon. Lady, the OBR is not forecasting rising unemployment over the Parliament; it is forecasting falling unemployment over the Parliament. I also remind her that half a million private sector jobs have been created over the last year. Let me deal directly with her point about social security. The welfare system is a poverty trap that is discouraging people from working. People on benefits
	face incredibly high marginal tax rates if they find work. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is, with my full support, seeking major reform of the welfare system, so we incentivise people off benefits and into work. That is one of the most important reforms this Government are undertaking.

Duncan Hames: Give our country’s debts, it is reassuring to learn that the price for Government borrowing has fallen to the lowest levels since the last Liberal Government. How much more expensive would Government borrowing be for taxpayers and public services if our interest rates had gone the same way as those in other parts of Europe?

George Osborne: It would of course have been ruinous, not just for individuals but for the Government. One of the largest items of Government spending I inherited, unfortunately, was debt interest. We are raising taxes in order to pay our international creditors and that interest is forecast to rise, sadly, over the Parliament, as we reduce the deficit. That is why it is so important to try to get debt falling by the end of the Parliament. Of course, any reduction in our gilts yields is good for the Government and saves us money, too.

Tom Blenkinsop: Can the Chancellor explain why his own Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts £46 billion of more borrowing?

George Osborne: The Office for Budget Responsibility makes its independent fiscal forecasts and, I think, one of the great policy developments of this Government has been the creation of that independent body, which will make its autumn forecasts in the usual way.

Laura Sandys: The Chancellor rightly mentioned the issues about the Doha round and trade. Trade permeates every aspect of our Government’s growth agenda. Will the Chancellor comment on whether he believes that the G20 appreciates how crucial releasing trade and ensuring greater free trade is at this moment in the global economic cycle?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the Doha round. The significance of this is that it is available for the countries of the world to seize—today, this month or next month—and implement. If one is looking around the world for something that could, in very short order, increase global demand, it is sitting there in the Doha trade round. I hope that we make progress at the G20. I suspect we will certainly be a leading advocate of making progress and we have some good allies, for example in China, but I have to say that there remain considerable obstacles, not least in the Democrat and Republican parties in the United States.

Stephen McCabe: If it is true that we are being used as a safe haven, why are we not seeing significant growth in the value of sterling?

George Osborne: As I say, I have a simple policy not to comment, as previous Chancellors have also decided to do, on the value of sterling. I do not propose to break that commitment today.

Matthew Hancock: In terms of the stimulus to the British economy, what does the Chancellor think would be the effect of increased borrowing, which would then have an impact on increased mortgage rates for millions of people up and down the country? What would be the aggregate impact, say, of a VAT cut?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is right that there is a significant monetary stimulus in place through the very low market interest rates and of course the official rate. Both of those would go up, almost certainly in the case of the markets and probably in the case of the Monetary Policy Committee, although it is independent, and that is why all this talk of more fiscal stimulus is a debate that is happening only in the Labour party of the United Kingdom, alone in the world. It is very difficult to find an opposition anywhere in Europe arguing for less deficit reduction coming off the published plans of a Government. As I say, if the shadow Chancellor turned up at one of these meetings and put forward his proposal, he would be laughed out of the meeting.

Andrew Miller: On a bipartisan basis, may I invite the Chancellor, as a fellow Cheshire MP, to join me in sending our best wishes to the two Cheshire officers injured last evening?
	On the subject of the statement, 11% coming off the stock market and massive hits to the values of British companies will have a knock-on impact on many pensioners. What is the Chancellor going to do about it?

George Osborne: Of course, stock market falls affect pension investments and other equity investments. Our stock market has fallen—not as much as some, but it has nevertheless fallen—

Edward Balls: Why is that?

George Osborne: It is because of the global lack of confidence in Governments’ abilities to deal with their deficits. We have not seen turbulence in our bond markets precisely because we have in place a credible deficit reduction plan. I note that I have been answering questions for more than an hour and it has almost been an hour since the shadow Chancellor said that the Labour party needed a credible deficit reduction plan, but has a single Labour MP got up and proposed any component of that reduction plan? No, they have not.

David Rutley: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the fact that over the past year we have seen the private sector create four times more jobs than have been lost in the public sector. Does he agree that this is a better approach to job creation than the overreliance on the public sector, which was all too prevalent over the past decade in regions such as the north-west under the previous Administration?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. First, I should take the opportunity that I did not take in answer to the previous question—as my hon. Friend, too, is a Cheshire MP—of praising the work of the Cheshire police, who have shown outstanding bravery over the past few days. My thoughts go out, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) said, to the injured officers.
	My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Surely we have learned something from the past decade, which is that relying on an unsustainable housing boom, unsustainable Government spending and unsustainable bank lending is not a model of growth that this country can pursue again. We have to get off this country’s addiction to debt, not just in the Government but in banks and households. That is what we are doing and it is a difficult adjustment that many western economies are having to go through. Unfortunately for us, given that we were the most enthusiastic participants in the debt boom, that adjustment is particularly difficult here in the UK.

Jonathan Edwards: Does the Chancellor agree with the recommendations of the recent economic commission of the Conservative party in Wales that job creation levers should be devolved to the Welsh Government? Does he agree that there is no need for another lengthy commission to come to that sensible conclusion?

George Osborne: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are in active discussion with all the parties in Wales and with the Welsh Assembly Government, discussing what further powers might be devolved to the Welsh Assembly, including fiscal powers that might have a role in economic development. I do not want to pre-empt that debate, but the fact that we have been prepared to engage in it shows that we are doing this in good faith.

Neil Carmichael: Given the credibility that the coalition Government have won through their deficit reduction programme, securing a triple A rating and having low interest rates, does the Chancellor think that it would be appropriate to send a message to encourage the same kind of decision making—swift and strong—across the eurozone?

George Osborne: I think we have got ahead of the curve. As I say, I am not one of those Finance Ministers who are having to come to their Parliaments and announce emergency budget cuts because they did not get ahead of the curve. It is important for the eurozone countries, and all countries, to have fiscal credibility. There are many good examples in the eurozone of countries that have done that and we are part of that pack.

Margaret Curran: I draw the Chancellor’s attention to the unemployment rate in my constituency, where 24 people are chasing every vacancy. People in my constituency have learned lessons from previous years: we learned from Mrs Thatcher that mass unemployment is not a price worth paying. What does the Chancellor intend to do to tackle unemployment in my constituency, which seems likely to rise?

George Osborne: I would make the observation that only every Labour Government in history have left office with unemployment higher than when they came into office.

Nicky Morgan: Is not the best way to help the hard-pressed families, taxpayers, jobseekers and pensioners mentioned by Members in all parts of the House—people who are not rioting, but getting on with the business of trying to make savings in
	their budgets and their family’s income—to ensure a stable economy, so that they can make sure that their living standards are maintained in the long term?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is right. What we are able to provide in the Government debt market is the stability that is sadly lacking in other Government debt markets. All of us now need to rise to the challenge of removing the obstacles to growth; that will mean confronting some vested interests, pressure groups and, dare I say it, even, potentially, trade unions, but it is absolutely essential that this country wakes up to the competitive pressures of the modern world—the competitive pressures that countries such as China and Brazil present to us—and gets the private sector growing in a way that will create the sustainable jobs that were so lacking in the past 10 years.

Jonathan Reynolds: Last year, Government borrowing came in some £20 billion lower than was anticipated; this year, we learn that it will be some £46 billion higher than was forecast. Can the Chancellor give us an explanation?

George Osborne: As I have already explained, we have an independent Office for Budget Responsibility—[Interruption.] I am pretty tempted to say that the answer is that the previous Chancellor did not want to have to downgrade his borrowing forecast four weeks before the general election, so he kitchen-sinked the borrowing forecast a year before, to make sure that he was able to show a reduction just before the general election.

Jo Swinson: I support the Government’s plans for cutting the deficit, leading to lower interest rates and increased international confidence in the UK economy, but the Chancellor is well aware that our economy is still fragile, so if tax revenues are higher than expected, or if there are receipts from asset sales, will the Chancellor reinvest that in capital infrastructure projects and skills development, to give a boost to our economy and create jobs, rather than being seduced by the voodoo economics of giving tax cuts to the rich?

George Osborne: There are quite a lot of American references in this debate. We have used the receipts of some of the asset sales that we have proposed—and indeed undertaken—to invest in new infrastructure, or in a particular industry. Of course, we have to do that on a case-by-case basis, but the spending review set out how we were going to use the proceeds of some of the asset sales for future investment.

Pamela Nash: The Chancellor failed to mention in his statement that the Bank of England has now downgraded the growth forecast for this country five times since he took office. How does he reconcile that fact with his claim that Britain is a safe economic haven?

George Osborne: I reconcile it by quoting the Governor of the Bank of England, given that the hon. Lady mentions the Bank. [Interruption.] Labour appointed the Governor of the Bank of England; in fact, I suspect
	that the shadow Chancellor made the appointment. The Governor of the Bank of England said yesterday that
	“the UK has done what it can”,
	in terms of putting the major conditions in place to ensure a rebalancing and a recovery. He went on:
	“We have a credible medium-term fiscal plan, which many countries do not”.

Andrew Jones: I welcome the Chancellor’s statement. If he accepted submissions to revert to a VAT cut through a debt-funded cut, would it have an impact on the UK’s triple A credit rating?

George Osborne: A multibillion-pound increase in our deficit would undermine market confidence in the UK, and would lead to an immediate increase in our market interest rates, probably within minutes. That would effectively mean higher mortgage and interest rates for businesses and families, and it would be one of the things that would choke off the recovery.

Alex Cunningham: I was pleased to visit TAG Energy Solutions in my constituency on Tuesday—a company that has just invested £20 million in a new rolling mill to make monopiles and transition pieces for the offshore wind industry. It is still to land its first order, and it is frustrated at the disadvantage that it has in comparison with Germany and other European countries, which buy at home. When will the Chancellor really do something to help British industry, ensure British wind farm developers buy British, help TAG create hundreds of jobs in Teesside, and get our economy moving again?

George Osborne: We are seeking to develop a domestic green energy industry; the company that the hon. Gentleman speaks of sounds like a good example of that. I hope that people buy British products, such as wind turbines, because they are the best in the world. To help that company make the best products in the world, we have to create a very competitive business environment, because the competition from the likes of Germany is so strong. Some of the decisions that have been taken on our energy policy have provided some stability, which allows investment in renewable energy technology.

Andrew Percy: The Humber is one of the regions that, over the past 10 years, lost private sector jobs, and instead relied on the public sector. Our way back is through manufacturing, so may I urge the Chancellor to look very closely at measures such as carbon floor pricing, and to look at clipping the wings of organisations such as Natural England, which are frustrating the planning process locally? Perhaps more parochially, will he look seriously at the submission from the Humber Bridge Board to buy the Humber bridge and cut tolls by next year?

George Osborne: I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the need to make progress on our planning reforms for the reasons that he gives. That means making some difficult decisions, and taking on some pressure groups, but I think that is absolutely right. Our planning reforms take into account the need to preserve our natural environment.
	Believe it or not, I am very familiar with the subject of Humber bridge tolls because my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) is a tireless campaigner on them. The Treasury is conducting an economic study of the effects of the tolls, and that will report at some point in this Parliament.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I congratulate the Chancellor on recognising, although somewhat belatedly, that there is a link between what happens in the global economy and what happens in the UK economy. In the light of that, what action does he intend to take to ensure that the problems with the US economy and the eurozone do not lead to further downward pressure on UK economic growth?

George Osborne: Unfortunately, I cannot make the UK invulnerable to events elsewhere in the world. Of course there is a global connection. I would draw this distinction between what I am saying and what the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), says. I am not saying that Britain has been blameless in the way it has handled its economy in the past decade or so. I am saying that we were the most enthusiastic participant in a global debt boom, and as a result we have one of the more difficult adjustments. That is, I am afraid, a statement of fact.

Roger Williams: Recent reports have shown that the rural economy has the capacity to grow quickly if it has the right conditions. Will the Chancellor confirm in his autumn update on the plan for growth that those conditions will be met so that the rural economy can play its part in improving the national finances?

George Osborne: We recognise the specific needs of the rural economy. Meeting them is one of the specific work strands in the second phase of the growth review. I know something of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. One of the absolute keys to rural economic development is getting the infrastructure right, especially rural broadband, which will open up all sorts of business opportunities in what would previously have been regarded as quite remote places. That is why we are right to be investing in rural broadband in Wales and across the UK.

Alan Whitehead: Will the Chancellor take the opportunity today to repudiate the OBR’s linkage of low growth with a requirement of £46 billion additional borrowing over the next period? If he will not, what additional cuts is he planning in order to avoid that outcome?

George Osborne: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands two things. First, the OBR is independent. If it is going to work as a permanent institution, it will need the support of the official Opposition. I hope that that is forthcoming, not just in the letter but in the spirit. There should not be a constant demand for the Chancellor of the day to provide their own fiscal forecasts. Secondly, as I say, we have put in place a credible deficit reduction plan. We heard from the shadow Chancellor that Labour needed a credible deficit reduction plan as well. Not a single Labour Member, including him, has proposed a single pound of spending cuts. Until the Labour party gets that credible plan, it will not really be able to participate in a sensible debate.

George Freeman: Has my right hon. Friend seen the latest data which show not only that the private sector has created four times more jobs than the public sector has lost but that Britain is now second in the G20 league of net job creation? Does that not show that the deficit strategy is working, and that the shadow Chancellor is wholly out of touch and has not learned the golden rule that you cannot borrow your way out of a debt crisis?

George Osborne: The shadow Chancellor has a bit of a history on his golden rules, and they do not usually turn out to work, but my hon. Friend is right that we are seeing net job creation. We are not remotely complacent about that. We are working extremely hard at improving the competitiveness of British industry, making sure that it is able to export and invest. That is the model of growth that this country now has to pursue.

Katy Clark: As the Chancellor knows, growth figures over the past nine months have been 0.2% and in the preceding nine months they were 2.1%. Many of the suggestions from the Opposition are about growth and economic regeneration. If we continue to see growth figures of that nature, either flatlining or negative, will the Chancellor reconsider his position and look at policies that stimulate growth?

George Osborne: The only thing I have heard from the Opposition—who by the way presided over the deepest recession since the 1930s—is a complaint every time there is a proposal to cut public expenditure. We heard that earlier today. I have not heard about any growth policies—as the hon. Lady puts it—from the Labour party; I have just heard opportunistic opposition to everything the Government are doing to have a credible deficit reduction plan. The shadow Chancellor has set himself his own test; he says he will produce a credible medium-term fiscal deficit plan. Let’s hear it.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the 52 Back Benchers who have questioned him.

Point of Order

Therese Coffey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the Prime Minister’s statement, you suggested that people could not speak if they were not here at the beginning of that statement. Could you clarify for me whether that includes people who were not on the Floor of the House but were indeed sitting in the Galleries?

Mr Speaker: I do not think any clarification is required. I simply say to the hon. Lady that by recent custom and practice, an hon. Member would be expected to be near a microphone in order properly to pose a question and to receive an answer. When a Member is in the Chamber for that purpose, he or she can do so. I did not refer to any particular Member. I have no intention of doing so and no need to do so. I said what I did and I felt that it was clear to the House.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25) ,
	That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Monday 5 September 2011.—(Sir George Young.)

Public Disorder

Theresa May: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of public disorder.

Mr Speaker: I remind the House that in view of the enormous interest in the debate I have imposed a limit of five minutes on Back-Bench speeches. There is no limit on Front-Bench speeches and I leave it to the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary to tailor contributions in light of the level of interest.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	The last five days have been a dark time for everybody who cares about their community and their country. Violence, arson and looting in several of our towns and cities, often openly in front of television cameras, have destroyed homes, ruined livelihoods and taken lives. As long as we wish to call ourselves a civilised society, such disorder has no place in Britain.
	I know that the House will want to join me in paying tribute to the bravery of the policemen and women who have worked to restore order on our streets. In particular, I know that hon. Members will want to lend their support to the police officers who have suffered injuries in the course of their duties, and the whole House will want to send condolences to the families of the three men so senselessly killed in Birmingham on Tuesday night.
	The violence of the last five days raises many searching questions, and the answers may be painful to hear and difficult to put right. Why is it that so many people are prepared to behave in this way? Why does a violent gang culture exist in so many of our towns and cities? Why did the police find it so hard to prevent or contain the violence? It will take time to answer those questions fully and adequately, but I will take each of them in turn.
	First are the reasons behind that behaviour. We must never forget that the only cause of a crime is a criminal. Everybody, no matter what their background or circumstances, has the freedom to choose between right and wrong. Those who make the wrong decision, who engage in criminality, must be identified, arrested and punished, and we will make sure that happens.

Alun Michael: Does the right hon. Lady not recognise what the Prime Minister said earlier? Every crime has a context. Is it not important, therefore, to have a full and proper inquiry, led by somebody of the level and competence of Lord Scarman, to look at the wider context of all these events? Of course, as the Home Secretary says, stating the blindingly obvious, the acts are the responsibility of those who committed them.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman asked the Prime Minister exactly the same question, and he gave a very clear answer. The Home Affairs Committee will consider the policing of the violence that has taken place over the past five days, and I will bring a report on gang culture and the number of gangs in our society—I will make further reference to it—to the House in October.

David Burrowes: I commend the points that my right hon. Friend has made in opening the debate. Does she share the concern relayed by a number of hon. Members about the soft sentences for such disorder passed in the cases that have already gone through the courts? Does she share my concern that, although we talk about riots, the number of people charged with riot is very small? As these were riots, whoever is charged with an offence during the nights of disorder should punished accordingly.

Theresa May: We have been clear in encouraging those who are making decisions about charging and, indeed, those who will make sentencing decisions in the courts to consider these crimes in the context of the circumstances. My hon. Friend refers to the fact that no one has been charged with the very specific offence of riot. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service are making the right charging decisions, and they are doing so in the context of ensuring that they recognise the impact that people being on the streets can have.
	No one doubts that the violence that we have seen over the past five days is a symptom of something very deeply wrong with our society. Children celebrated as they smashed their way into shops. Men in sports cars arrived at stores to steal goods. Women tried on trainers before they stole them. A teaching assistant was caught looting. Thugs pretended to help a injured young man but robbed him. They are shocking images, but they are in fact symbols of a deeper malaise in our society.
	Almost 2 million children are brought up in households in which no one works. One in three children leaves primary school unable to read, write and add up properly. We have the highest level of drug abuse in Europe. Almost 100 knife crimes are committed every day and nearly 1 million violent crimes every year. Half of all prisoners reoffend within a year of their release from prison. Those are serious social problems, and we cannot go on ignoring them. No one is pretending that there are easy answers to such deep-rooted problems, but they are the reasons why the reform of welfare, schools and the criminal justice system cannot wait.

Toby Perkins: The right hon. Lady lays out the context of the difficult role that faces our police. In that context, is it not bizarre that the Government should choose to make such swingeing cuts to the Home Office budget and particularly to the police budget, in comparison with other budgets that have survived relatively intact? Why does she not fight her corner and ensure that we have enough police on the streets to do the job?

Theresa May: I am clear that there will be enough police on the streets to do the job that we and the public want them to do, and that police officers want to do. I say to any other Opposition Member who wants to make a similar point that I listened to the previous statement and it is now absolutely clear that the Labour party has abandoned any pretence of having a credible policy to deal with the deficit.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Prime Minister said this morning that, all of sudden, the Met could turn out 16,000 people in a day, rather than the previous 6,000 or whatever the figure was. That does not take into account all the other policemen and
	women from all the other forces. How many Met police were in fact turned out, and how many came from other forces?

Theresa May: A significant number did indeed come from other forces. I do not want to give the right hon. Gentleman figures that are incorrect, so I will get the precise figures for him. It is right that the 16,000 figure that the Prime Minister spoke about included mutual aid from other forces. I pay tribute to all the forces around the United Kingdom that have been willing to provide support and particularly trained police support units.

Keith Vaz: Is it also the right hon. Lady’s understanding that if a police authority has had to dip into its contingency fund to pay any of the additional costs of high police visibility, which we all understand have to be met, it will be recompensed—that there is no question of police authorities having to expend the money themselves?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman has been involved in home affairs long enough to know that a scheme is available under which police forces can make special requests to the Home Office in relation to specific expenses that they have had to incur. There are some rules on how the scheme operates, but as the Prime Minister made clear, we are committed to providing support to police authorities, and therefore police forces, in relation to the financial implications of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. As the House will be aware, those costs could be significant, given the events on our streets.

Barbara Keeley: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Frank Dobson: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Theresa May: I will give way to the hon. Lady, then make a little progress.

Barbara Keeley: Apropos police budgets, will the right hon. Lady comment on what it has been reported she was told by Greater Manchester police about what happened on Tuesday:
	“We really didn’t have the staff, protection or resources to deal with it. I find it really, really frustrating and really worrying that people could have got killed.”
	So overstretched were our officers in Greater Manchester, particularly in Salford, that apparently they reported to the Home Secretary that they could have been killed. It is not only Labour Members who are saying this; it is police officers, as well.

Theresa May: I was pleased to visit Greater Manchester police yesterday and to sit down with some of the officers—the most highly trained riot officers—who had been on the front line in Salford on Tuesday night. One of the most striking comments made by an officer was that he had looked up into the sky and it was dark because it was raining bricks. They were under extreme pressure that night, facing violence of a ferocity that
	they had not seen before. There were times in Salford when the police did not have sufficient numbers to deal with what was happening on the street, and they had to retreat and regroup both for their personal protection and to make sure that they could do their proper job of protection on the streets.
	I can inform the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who asked how many of the 16,000 officers in London were Metropolitan Police Service officers, that more than 90% were.

Andrew Miller: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Theresa May: I said I wanted to make some progress, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am conscious that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), whose constituency was affected, rose earlier. If he still wishes to intervene, I will take his intervention next.

Andrew Miller: Following the right hon. Lady’s reply to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who speaks for the Welsh nationalists, can she give similar figures for Manchester and Liverpool, which also drew on resources from surrounding forces? We heard earlier about injuries sustained by Cheshire officers, for example. I think the figures ought to published and made available to everyone.

Theresa May: I could provide a map of where officers went around the country, but it was not a matter of simple exchanges between one force and another. Officers from one force will have gone to support another, with subsequent backfilling by officers from a further force. The whole point of the ACPO PNICC—police national information co-ordination centre—arrangement is that such movements around the country can be worked so that when a force asks for numbers to be increased, officers are available. The key element is that the officers in question are mainly in police support units—officers who are specially trained in public order—thereby ensuring that the officers on the streets have the right level of training.

Frank Dobson: In response to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), the Home Secretary said that no one had been charged with riot because the particular circumstances of riot had not arisen, or the charge was inappropriate. Will she confirm that that fact will not be used by the Metropolitan police to weasel out of providing the compensation that should be provided under the Riot (Damages) Act?

Theresa May: I think I can provide that guarantee to the right hon. Gentleman.

Stephen Timms: My constituency was badly affected on Monday. I wanted to ask about the police cuts. The Prime Minister told us earlier that the budget cuts could be managed with no reductions in visible policing. As the Home Secretary knows, in London a large number of police sergeants are being taken out the leadership of safer neighbourhoods teams in a very visible way. Are we to take it that the Government think there is a different way of managing cuts in London from the one that is being implemented?

Theresa May: No. We are leaving police forces, as is appropriate, together with their police authorities, to decide in relation to budget what will happen. We are leaving chief constables to make operational decisions about how they do that. What is absolutely clear in relation to the Metropolitan police is that under the leadership of the last Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan police increased the availability of police in terms of the number of hours that would be spent and the amount of ground that could be covered by moving to the single patrols. They said, “There is a different way of doing this.” That is a good example of how such an innovative approach can improve the presence on the ground.
	I shall now move on to the question of gang culture in many of our towns and cities. Six per cent. of young people are thought to belong to a gang of one kind or another. Gangs are inherently criminal. On average, entrenched gang members have 11 criminal convictions, and the average age for the first conviction of a gang member is just 15. They are also inherently violent. Gangs across the country are involved with the use and supply of drugs, firearms and knives. From talking to chief constables who have dealt with the violence of the past few days, it is clear that many of the perpetrators, but by no means all of them, are known gang members. So we have to do more to tackle gang culture.
	We have already announced plans to provide £4 million in funding to London, Greater Manchester and the west midlands over the course of this year and next to tackle their gang, guns and knives problem. We are providing a further £4 million over two years to community organisations working to stop young people becoming involved in gangs, help young people get out of gangs and support parents to help their children, and we are working with the Prince’s Trust to support young people who want to prevent gang violence, through the new Ben Kinsella fund.

Robert Buckland: It is clear that many of the perpetrators of these appalling crimes have been very young children indeed, and we know the limitations of the criminal law in relation to detention for young offenders who are under 14. Does my right hon. Friend agree that efforts to use restorative justice principles with young offenders, making them face up to the victims of their crimes and making them play their part in restoring the damage that they have done would be a good way to divert those young children from further involvement in the gang culture and in the crimes that we have seen?

Theresa May: I have long been a supporter of restorative justice where it is going to work. That is one of the key issues that we need to look at when we consider what is an appropriate way of dealing with individuals. Restorative justice has a record of dealing particularly well with those who are young and first offenders. However, sadly, it may be the case that even at a very young age, some of the people we are looking at who have been involved in the violence are not simply first offenders. It is a sad comment on our society that there may be those who have been involved as gang members in criminal activity previously. But we need to do more.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Theresa May: I am conscious of the strictures that Mr Speaker put on the length of the debate. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) asked earlier to intervene, so I will give way to him.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful. Does the Home Secretary accept that the evidence from the police and the community in urban communities such as mine is that there are 40 or 50 serial serious criminals who are regularly the causes of most of the trouble and most of the crime, and who were involved in the past week’s activities? Can she give an assurance that with chief police officers and local police commanders they are a central target for activity, so that they cannot sweep in the youngsters referred to in the previous question and others, who become the followers, but are following only because there is someone seriously criminal who leads?

Theresa May: I can assure my right hon. Friend that the police are very clear that they want to identify and arrest all those who have been involved in the activity that has taken place over the past few days, and they are conscious that that means not just those who find themselves caught up in it, but those who are the core criminals, who are well known to them. As a number of chief constables have been saying to me, they know a number of the gang members who have been involved because they have had interaction with them before.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Theresa May: I hope that hon. Members will bear with me and allow me to make a little more progress because I am conscious of the time available for the debate.
	We need to help communities more in sharing ideas and expertise on how we can tackle their gang problems, so working with ACPO we will establish an ending gang violence team of experts drawn from across the country, from the police service, local authorities and the voluntary sector, to provide an up-to-date map of the scale of the problem and practical, on-the-ground expert advice to areas wanting to get on top of their gang problems.
	In January we launched gang injunctions, which give the police the power to impose tough sanctions on adult gang members, such as barring them from entering certain parts of town, appearing in public with dogs or wearing their gang colours or emblems. As the Prime Minister said in his statement earlier today, we will now go further and introduce gang injunctions for young people under the age of 18, not just in pilot form but throughout the country. As the Prime Minister also said in his statement, and as I said in answer to a question, I will present a report to Parliament in October on a cross-Government programme to combat gangs.

Hazel Blears: I have listened carefully to what the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have had to say so far, and I have heard already that we want the police to be able to surge in numbers in immediate crisis situations. The Home Secretary has now given a reassurance that the police will focus on the most prolific and serious offenders in our communities and she is now going into detail about how the police will work with a range of community partners to end
	gangs. There has to be a limit to what the police can achieve, and in Greater Manchester we will have 1,500 fewer of them at the end of this period. Cuts do need to be made, but at the moment a 20% cut genuinely needs to be re-evaluated in the light of the incidents and the severity of the events we have seen.

Theresa May: I pay tribute to the way in which the right hon. Lady has entered into the debate generally. Her constituency was particularly badly affected and is a particular example of criminal gangs operating on the streets in order to test and press the police. I will give the same answer to her in relation to police budgets as I gave earlier and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to a number of Members who raised the issue. At the end of the spending review period, the police will have the numbers to enable them to deploy in the way they have done during the last few days. It is possible to make cuts in police budgets by taking money out of matters such as better procurement to ensure that we can achieve the cuts that we need to make while still leaving police able to do the job that we want them to do and that they want to do.
	In January 2011, the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, Peter Fahy, told the Home Affairs Committee:
	“we have large numbers of officers still in roles that do not require the skills, the powers and expertise of a police officer. It is through that route over the next four years where we will achieve quite a bit of savings.”

William Cash: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the emphasis that she is putting on the gang culture, which the Prime Minister himself referred to when he said that it was a culture that glorifies violence and says everything about rights but nothing about responsibilities. Does she agree that the legal restraints that are placed upon, for example, the police, social services, teachers and parents, in imposing discipline in the home, in school or elsewhere, directly derive from a number of legal constraints that come from, for example, the Human Rights Act 1998, which needs to be repealed? We cannot deal with the culture and with the question of rights and responsibilities unless we deal with one of the root causes, which is this idea that people can do anything and get away with it.

Theresa May: We are taking steps to deal with the culture, and one example is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is taking steps to ensure that we restore discipline in our schools. My hon. Friend refers to the Human Rights Act, which was referred to during questions to the Prime Minister, and my hon. Friend is well aware that we are looking at the issue both through the Bill of Rights commission that has been set up by the Ministry of Justice and my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary and work that we are doing with the ECHR.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Theresa May: I ask hon. Members to bear with me, because I am very conscious of the fact that many will wish to speak in the debate.
	I want to move on to the questions about the police reaction to the violence, because I know that hon. Members, like members of the public, are concerned about the speed and quality of the police response. That response has changed over the past five days and has differed across the country. We need to appraise it honestly and bluntly and learn lessons where things have gone wrong. As we know, the first disturbances in London began in Tottenham on Saturday night. The police operation began with the originally peaceful protest about the death of Mark Duggan. Officers were understandably cautious about how they policed the protest, but as the violence began they lost control and a fully fledged riot followed.
	On Sunday night, with Tottenham calm, the police managed to nip in the bud trouble at Oxford Circus, but the violence spread to Enfield and Brixton. On Monday night, the number of officers deployed in London increased to 6,000, two or three times more than there are on a normal evening, but still that was not enough and, with the violence reaching Hackney, Peckham, Croydon, Ealing, Lewisham and Clapham, officers were overwhelmed. In Clapham, the mob ran amok for more than two hours before the police regained control. That is simply not acceptable.
	On Tuesday, the Prime Minister and I held a meeting with the acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner, in which he set out his intention at least to double the deployment of officers. During the day, a number of offenders were identified, arrested and taken out of circulation. Officers took a tougher approach and intervened earlier to disperse groups before trouble began. Leave was cancelled, special constables were mobilised and mutual aid was stepped up, so up to 16,000 officers were deployed in total. As I said, officers took a more robust approach to tackling disorder and making arrests. There are tricky days and nights ahead, but thanks to the efforts of those thousands of officers order has in large part been restored.

Diane Abbott: —rose.

Chuka Umunna: —rose .

Theresa May: I will give way to the hon. Lady, whose constituency was affected, and then to the hon. Gentleman.

Diane Abbott: The whole House admires the bravery and courage of the police officers, who were often up for three or four days without any time off, and we understand the need to police the disturbances in Tottenham carefully, but young people were seen looting Wood Green shopping centre and Tottenham Hale retail park for hours early on Sunday morning, which I think gave the green light to every little hooligan in London to come out on following days to loot and steal.

Theresa May: It is unacceptable that people were able to do that on our streets. There were not enough police on the streets on Saturday night. The number of police was increased further on Sunday and Monday, and it was then clear that that needed to go further. We had a conversation with the acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who presented plans to more than double the number of police on the streets. I have been clear
	over the past few days that we need not only the police presence, but a tough policy on arrests to give a very clear message that these actions have consequences so that people do not think that they can get away with it in the way the hon. Lady suggests.

Chuka Umunna: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. The surge in officers that came after the decision taken at 9 am on Tuesday made a huge difference in my constituency and meant that we had a peaceful night. Did the commissioner explain why he did not increase the number of police to 16,000 sooner? The police in my constituency dealt with a really impossible situation and we are incredibly grateful to them, but why was that decision, which was announced by the Prime Minister at 9 am on Tuesday, not made sooner—for example, on Monday evening, because it was very clear in our area, given what had happened on Sunday night, that this would get far bigger?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point. That is one of the issues that we need to look at in more detail when dealing with this. However, the answer that I would give him is that when the police were looking at their numbers and bringing in some mutual aid, which they did on Monday night, they were of the view that they would have the capacity to deal with what they believed was going to happen.
	The police were dealing with a different situation from that which they had seen before. One comment that a number of chief constables and officers have made to me is that they were surprised by the speed with which gangs were able to mobilise through the use of social media, and I shall come on to the issue of social media. Very real questions have to be answered about how we take forward those policing matters, and that is why we need to make sure that we learn the lessons from that situation.
	The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) is right that the number of officers then put on the streets on Tuesday night was effective. That robust policing, coupled with a robust arrest policy, was effective; it has been continued, and other forces have followed it through.

Tony Lloyd: It is very easy for us as politicians to be armchair police officers, and it would have been wrong to comment on the night, but we need a cold analysis in order to know whether, for example, the lessons of the surge in London were taken on board in other parts of the country. That is not a matter that should divide the House; that is a matter of concern to my constituents, obviously, to those of other Greater Manchester Members and to those in other cities and conurbations throughout the country.

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point, and yesterday I had a conference call with chief officers from throughout the country to tell them that we wanted them to adopt exactly that approach. I shall refer to that in a few minutes.

Mike Gapes: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Theresa May: I am going to make a little more progress, because, although the number of officers on the streets on Tuesday night made a difference in London, we saw more disorder in other parts of the country. We saw it
	in towns and cities including Manchester, Salford, Nottingham, Wolverhampton and, for a second night, Birmingham, where there was further violence. In Greater Manchester and the west midlands, despite the best efforts of officers, we saw for a while that thugs, not the police, were in control of the streets.
	In Winson Green in Birmingham, as we know, three young men were killed when they were hit, apparently deliberately, by a car, and I, like the whole House, want to pay tribute to Tariq Jahan, the father of one of the victims, for an extremely dignified call for calm, which undoubtedly did much to calm community relations.
	As I have just said in answer to an intervention, yesterday I convened and chaired a conference call with chief officers from every force in the country. We agreed the mobilisation of all special constables, the cancellation of police leave throughout the country and the adoption of the tactics deployed by the Metropolitan police in London. Again, there are difficult days and nights ahead, and we are not complacent, but at this stage order has been resorted.
	We said that we would do everything necessary to bring the disorder to an end, and we meant it. We made it clear to the police that there was nothing to stop them using baton rounds if they judged it necessary, and we put the water cannon stationed in Northern Ireland on standby, to be deployed within 24 hours. The police made it clear to me that they did not want to use them, and, as things stand, what is working to restore order is officers on the streets and robust policing with the help and support of local communities. We would jeopardise that if we rushed to use things such as rubber bullets.

Margot James: During the Prime Minister’s statement, we heard a lot about the stand-and-observe order that was apparently given to the police in particular circumstances. We all agree that that was terrible, but was not the policy determined mostly by police concern about over-reaction, given that they have been so criticised for how they dealt with the G20 riots, on which there is a case pending in the European Court of Human Rights? Does the Home Secretary agree that, whatever police powers we end up agreeing with, in such circumstances we must provide consistent support when things go wrong?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point that I will come to in my remarks.
	The police are concerned to ensure that when we talk about robust policing, we definitely give them backing for what they want to do. Policing by consent is the British way, but the police retain the confidence of the wider community only if they are seen to take clear and robust action in the face of open criminality. On Monday night it was clear that there simply were not enough officers on duty. The largest policing event in London is the Notting Hill carnival. There were about 6,000 officers on duty on Monday night, which is the number that the police usually deploy for the Notting Hill carnival. It was clear that in the circumstances that developed that was not enough officers on duty.
	It is clear to me that the original police tactics were insufficient—exactly the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) raised. After the criticism of previous public order operations for excessive force, some officers appeared reluctant to be
	sufficiently robust in breaking up groups. Many arrests were made, but in some situations officers contained suspects in a specified area where they were free to commit criminal damage and steal, instead of intervening and making arrests. I want to make it clear to the House that in making these points, I am not criticising the police. Too often, the police are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Nowhere is that truer than in public order policing. I want to be clear that as long as officers act within reason and the law, this Home Secretary will never damn the police if they do.

David Tredinnick: Earlier, I raised with the Prime Minister the nervousness of the police in acting since the G20 disturbances and the sad death. Will the Home Secretary reassure the House that officers who take robust action will not find themselves on the wrong end of the law?

Theresa May: As I have just said and as I have made clear to the police from when I first took on this role, I will always back officers who do the right thing and operate within the law. Appropriate action must be taken against officers who do the wrong thing, but we will back officers who do the right thing and I will back them as Home Secretary.

Anne McIntosh: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Theresa May: I ask my hon. Friend to bear with me for a few minutes because I want to talk about another way in which the police response could have been better, which is in the harnessing, sharing and analysis of intelligence.
	Even in the best of economic times, we would not have the resources to keep up this level of deployment continuously, so public order planning and intelligence will need to be considerably better. This is not the first time that criminals with plans to disrupt life in our towns and cities have used technology to plot their crimes. Social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook and messaging services such as BlackBerry Messenger have been used to co-ordinate criminality and stay one step ahead of the police. I will therefore convene a meeting with ACPO, the police and representatives from the social media industry to work out how we can improve the technological and related legal capabilities of the police.

Tracey Crouch: Social networking has obviously been heavily involved in the organisation of the disruption. However, open social networks such as Twitter have also provided the police, including Kent police, with an opportunity to dispel rumours and myths about where future disturbances will happen. There is more of a problem with closed networks such as BlackBerry Messenger. Will the Home Secretary congratulate forces that have used social networking to their advantage and concentrate on the closed networking opportunities that have been used by others?

Theresa May: I certainly congratulate forces that have used social networking to their advantage. Kent police are one example and the Metropolitan police have also
	used social networking. That is why what should be done in relation to social networking is not an easy open-and-shut case. There are positive uses of social networking sites as well as negative uses. That is why it is important that I convene the various parties involved to sit down and talk this matter through in a sensible way. Among the issues we will discuss is whether and how we should stop people communicating via such websites and services when we know that they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Theresa May: There is a limit on Back-Bench speeches and I have already spoken for more than half an hour, so if hon. Members will bear with me, I think that I should finish my speech and give Back Benchers the opportunity to speak.
	A further difficulty, not just in the past week’s disorder, but in other recent operations, has been face covering by criminals. The police already have a power to require people to remove face coverings in certain limited circumstances. Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows officers to force their removal only in a specific geographical location for a limited time, linked to a threat of violence. That does not leave discretion to individual constables or allow officers to nip trouble in the bud early. We will change the law to allow police officers to remove face coverings if they have a reasonable belief that they are related to criminal activity, under any circumstances. As the Prime Minister has said, we will also consider the use of existing dispersal powers and whether any wider power of curfew is necessary.
	We often say in the House that there can be no liberty without order and the events of the past five days have shown that more clearly than ever. The tide is turning, and order is returning to our streets. Since Saturday, more than 1,200 people have been arrested and more than 400 have been charged. Courts in London, the west midlands and Manchester have worked through the night and offenders are already starting to be prosecuted. I am clear that the perpetrators of the violence must pay for their actions, and the courts should hand down custodial sentences for any violent crimes.
	The tide is turning because communities throughout the country have said that enough is enough. It is turning because the thugs are being arrested and locked up. It is turning because of the bravery and dedication of the men and women of our police forces. We ask police officers to put themselves in harm’s way on a routine basis. We ask them to go into dangerous situations that most of us hope we will never experience. We have the best police officers in the world and we owe them all a debt of gratitude.

Yvette Cooper: We gather today in sober circumstances, when the scenes on the streets of Britain’s cities have disturbed and appalled us all: burning buildings, looting, beatings, smashing windows, setting cars on fire, with shop owners fearful for their livelihoods and residents fearful for their very lives. City dwellers, who have been proud of regeneration and the reclamation of the streets as urban crime fell, suddenly feel afraid to walk outside their doors.
	Yesterday, I talked to a woman in West Bromwich outside her shop. It is a small shop, which she staffs alone. Two of her neighbours were also small business women running their own high street shops. On Tuesday afternoon, those women were terrified by gangs who tore down that high street, throwing bricks and setting a van alight outside the sweet shop on the corner. Yesterday, they were back in their shops—they work hard—but they were afraid. The jeweller’s opposite had decided not to open at all. The security and confidence in going about their daily lives that they normally took for granted had been destroyed.
	We have all been horrified by the extent of criminality—the opportunistic looting, the aggression, the greed, the lack of respect for people, property, community or the law—that we saw in those involved over a series of nights. However, we must not let that blind us to the heroism, bravery and determination of communities to support law and order and to stand against the violence and the chaos.
	In particular, I want to join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to those police officers who have worked so hard to face up to the criminals and restore order. Many have been out on the streets working 17 or 18-hour days, standing up to baying mobs. Officers have come from throughout the country into cities to help, and specials and police community support officers have been doing everything they can. We should pay tribute to their bravery and to that of the fire and other emergency services.
	We should also pay tribute to those in our communities who have worked hard to prevent violence from escalating: the thousands who have joined clean-up campaigns; the people who are helping the police now, reporting the neighbour who has suddenly got three new tellies; and those who are reaching out to young people to prevent them from getting drawn into criminal activity. We should recognise that millions of young people across Britain were also deeply appalled by the violence of a minority. They reject the criminal action that we have seen.
	All our thoughts will also be with the family and friends of those who have died. I particularly want to send condolences, as the Home Secretary has done, to the families of the three young men in Birmingham who were killed in the early hours of yesterday morning in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood). She has told me how much those young men were loved and how devastating their loss is to their friends, families and communities. Special tribute must go to Tariq Jahan, who stood before the public, just hours after losing his son Haroon, to appeal for calm. He said:
	“'Today we stand here to plead with all the youth to remain calm, for our communities to stand united.”
	That was the sentiment of a man and a family in their darkest hour, which has resonated—and should—throughout the country.
	It was a disgrace to see literally thousands of British citizens, many of them not yet even old enough to vote, ripping through our urban fabric, but standing against them now are not just thousands of British police officers, but millions of British people, who love their cities and towns, and who support their communities and the rule of law. That is what has been so shocking
	and disturbing for city dwellers over the past few nights: the fear that the rule of law, which we so often take for granted, could suddenly seem to be ripped up. Those women in West Bromwich whom I talked to yesterday need the confidence to keep their businesses open and to be able to lock up at night and walk the streets home to their families in safety. People have a right to feel safe in their homes and safe on their streets. Maintaining respect for the rule of law is a fundamental part of our democracy and why we as democrats in this House all stand to support it now. Ultimately, it is about respect for other people—for their safety and their livelihoods.
	That is why we now support the Government and the Home Secretary in their work to restore order to our streets and normality to our communities. I know that the Home Secretary has been deeply worried and concerned about these events from the start. I know that she called my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on Sunday to express her concern and that she returned to the Home Office on Monday. I commend her for doing so, and for her early grasp of the seriousness of the violence. We support her and the Prime Minister in their determination to restore order to Britain’s streets. As other Members have said, it is important that we come together in this House to condemn the criminality that we have seen. There is no excuse for the violence, destruction and theft, putting lives as well as livelihoods at risk. The perpetrators must take responsibility and face the consequences of what they have done.
	The Government were right to convene Cobra, were right to recall Parliament and are right to support the police in the action that they need to take. Thankfully, last night was relatively calm, and we have seen progress being made. However, Ministers will also know that it is not sufficient to restore calm for a night or a week. Our cities cannot afford for these problems to simmer and bubble, and then to spill over again in a week or month, or when the next big public event takes place. We need a clear strategy for tackling this violence throughout the summer and beyond. That is the task for Parliament now: not just to condemn, but to debate the action that must be taken.
	That means, first, support for strong action through the police and the courts, and considering the powers that the police and the courts have. More than 1,500 people have been arrested so far, and that is rising all the time. Those who committed criminal acts must face the full force of the law. The Home Secretary was right to show her support for robust police action as well. I welcome the all-night sittings of the London courts to ensure that charges can be swiftly brought. I welcome too the use of CCTV, which has played a powerful role in identifying the culprits, and the use of dispersal orders and other powers to intervene fast, rather than waiting for disorder to take hold. We also support looking further at the issues of face coverings and curfews.
	However, those now in government have in the past have criticised the use and the existence of many of the powers concerned, previously voting against many measures on face coverings and now, in the Protection of Freedoms Bill, making things harder for the police, including on CCTV. I particularly ask the Home Secretary to look again at her proposals to introduce considerable additional layers of new bureaucracy for the police and councils who want to introduce CCTV. I hope that she will think
	again. As she does so, she may also want to consider looking again at plans to ban antisocial behaviour orders.

David Burrowes: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I wanted to intervene when she was being particularly measured in her response, which I welcome. Will she dissociate herself from the ill-judged comments by the former London Mayor, who sought to put the blame for what happened on the streets of London on Government actions?

Yvette Cooper: No, that is not what Ken Livingstone was saying. He has been very clear that those who have committed criminal acts need to take responsibility and to feel the full force of the law.
	Let me add a word of caution to the Government briefing on water cannons and baton rounds. The perception in the newspapers has been that it was only the Prime Minister’s intervention that has made possible the use of water cannon and baton rounds, and the Home Secretary seemed to suggest something similar in her statement today. However, it is important to be clear that the police already had the power to use baton rounds or to ask police in Northern Ireland for the use of their water cannon. That is an operational matter for the police, not a political judgment for Ministers. The Home Secretary will know that the ACPO head, one of the few chief constables to have used water cannon, has made it clear today that those options are open to senior officers but would not have been useful in the particular circumstances that the police faced.
	The Home Secretary has rightly backed the police when they need to be able take robust action, but I hope that she will also—as part of that backing—affirm that the police are able to make independent operational decisions based on the individual circumstances that they face and that politicians are not trying to direct the police on issues as important as the use of water cannons and baton rounds. Fundamental to the rule of law that we are now working so hard to sustain is the principle of an impartial, professional police service, involving policing by consent, and that must be preserved.
	I would also caution against any consideration of the use of the Army to play a policing role. If we have enough police, we do not need the troops. They have their own important job to do.

Andrew Murrison: Does the right hon. Lady not agree that while of course the police have discretion to use water cannons and baton rounds, it is very important for our political leaders to articulate their support? We must not fall into the trap that her Government did when Ministers in the Ministry of Defence failed to give backing to troops doing very difficult jobs in very difficult circumstances. It is important that Ministers back the actions of our police.

Yvette Cooper: I simply disagree that when we were in government we failed to back our troops in difficult situations. We were very clear always to back the troops in the very difficult job that they did.
	It is right to back the police and be very clear that we will support them when they have to take very difficult and robust decisions, but some of the briefings to the newspapers suggested that the police did not have the powers to use water cannons or baton rounds, and that they had them only because the Prime Minister had stepped in to authorise them and to encourage their use. This issue needs to be carefully handled. The police have always had those powers and it is right that they should use them in operational situations where that is appropriate and they judge that they are needed. We should back them in such circumstances, but I caution that we should be clear that it is an operational judgment for those police officers, not a matter of direction by politicians.

Stephen McCabe: I agree with my right hon. Friend. If these horrendous events were to occur in the era of police and crime commissioners, is she confident that chief constables would have the power to make such decisions should a baying public demand different action from the commissioners? Would chief constables be able to withstand that pressure?

Yvette Cooper: Senior police officers who I have spoken to are concerned about the possibility that their activities will be constrained or inhibited by inappropriate intervention by American-style police and crime commissioners in operational decisions. It is important to note that the operational independence guidance has not yet been agreed between the police and the Government.

Tony Lloyd: The Prime Minister rightly made great play of the ability of the Metropolitan police and, for example, the Greater Manchester police to draw on officers from other forces, but it is not clear to me whether it would still be possible to move police around the country following the introduction of political commissioners. The pressures against it would be enormous.

Yvette Cooper: The Met’s ability to put 16,000 police officers on the streets of London depended partly on mutual aid. It depended on the ability to draw on officers from other parts of the country, which is a hugely important principle. It is part of our policing model, and it has been effective. However, as my hon. Friend says, we should consider whether a chief constable and a police and crime commissioner campaigning to be re-elected by the local community will put local policing before their obligations to neighbouring areas that may face greater pressures. That is another major concern that has been raised with me.
	This issue raises serious questions about resources which need to be addressed. Like the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, I have asked police representatives whether they need more powers to do their job in the present circumstances. One senior officer put it very bluntly: he said that the problem in the early stages had been not a lack of powers, but a lack of cops. As the Home Secretary has confirmed, there were not enough police officers on the streets when the violence started. No one anticipated the scale of the violence that our cities would face. In some instances, the police did not step in to make arrests because they did not have enough officers out there to do so while also containing the public order problems that confronted them.
	Last night, again, the Met put 16,000 officers on the streets. That is more than five times the normal likely strength in the capital, and it worked, but it came at a cost. Thousands of officers from other areas must be paid for, as must the cancelling of leave. The last couple of nights have probably cost the Met alone millions of pounds, and we need some clarity about the Government’s position. The Prime Minister said that, under Victorian legislation, the costs of riot compensation would be borne not by police budgets but by the Treasury reserve, and I welcome that announcement. However, the Prime Minister also appeared to say, in answer to a question asked by Members, that the Treasury would stand behind all the extra operational policing costs as well. I hope that that is correct, because the Home Secretary seemed to say something very different. She appeared to suggest that the pressure would sit on the reserves of the police authorities and forces involved.
	I shall be happy to give way if the Home Secretary wishes to clarify the disparity between her comments and those of the Prime Minister. I hope she will agree that the costs of policing unprecedented riots and criminality must not necessitate cuts in the very neighbourhood and community police whom we need in order to prevent further criminal action.

Christopher Pincher: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Yvette Cooper: First I want to give the Home Secretary an opportunity to clarify the position in relation to the immediate additional operational costs that the Met and other forces will incur. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary says, from a sedentary position, that she has already clarified that. The Prime Minister may need to correct the record, because he certainly gave me the impression, and I think he gave many other Members the impression, that the Treasury would stand behind any of the additional operational costs faced by the Met and other police forces as a result of this unprecedented criminal activity. Those costs could well be considerable, because we do not know how long the police activity will need to continue. Will it continue through the weekend or into next week, and how will it be paid for? Will it have to be paid for by police budgets which are already extremely stretched and already under pressure? Will normal, routine policing be overstretched as a result of the Government’s decision not to fund these extra, additional and exceptional costs?

Keith Vaz: The Prime Minister was answering a question that I had put to him, and I was very clear that what was meant was if a police authority dipped into the contingency, the additional costs would be reimbursed to it. I think that what the Home Secretary just said in answer to me was that an authority would have to make an application for that, but she tended to support what the Prime Minister said. That was my understanding; is it also my right hon. Friend’s understanding?

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary will be immensely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs for desperately trying to create some consistency between what the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have said. I will certainly give the Home Secretary the opportunity to confirm whether my right hon. Friend is correct and in what circumstances
	the police forces will be able to get additional help, because I am afraid she has not clarified that. I am sure my right hon. Friend would make an excellent Home Secretary, but I think the current Home Secretary may need to answer his questions, and mine as well. I still await the Home Secretary’s answer, but she remains silent.

Christopher Pincher: rose —

Yvette Cooper: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman on the Government Back Benches, to see whether he can provide clarity where the Home Secretary still refuses to do so.

Christopher Pincher: The right hon. Lady asks the Home Secretary to clarify a point, but may I ask her to clarify a point about her earlier comments on Ken Livingstone? On the BBC, Mr Livingstone said that the Government’s policies were creating social division, bringing conflict between the communities and the police. Does she support that point of view, or will she condemn it?

Yvette Cooper: Ken Livingstone was very clear about the need for people to take responsibility for their actions and also the need for those involved in recent events to be punished. He was very clear about there being no excuse.
	I have to say to the Home Secretary that we still do not have an answer. In the discussions I have had with the Met police, they have expressed concern that the additional cost of the extra policing required as a result of this criminality will come not from the Treasury reserve, but from their own reserve. Like the reserves of many police authorities across the country, the Met reserve is extremely stretched as a result of the police cuts. If this situation continues over many days, I am deeply concerned that the Met may end up having either to reduce the level of policing on the streets before it is ready to do so or to make cuts elsewhere in its budgets on routine policing. The Home Secretary has still not given any answer as to what she would do to support the Met police and other police forces. She really does need to think again on this and provide more information to the House, and to police forces and communities across the country about what support they will get.

Stephen Phillips: I must, I am afraid, take the right hon. Lady back to what other members of her party have said, and seek clarity on that. The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) tweeted that
	“the Tories are back alright. Why is it the Tories never take responsibility for the consequences of their party’s disastrous policies”,
	with the hash tag “tottenham”, but the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has said:
	“Cuts don’t turn you into a thief.”
	Which of them does the right hon. Lady agree with?

Yvette Cooper: I noticed the hon. Gentleman’s nerves when holding his piece of paper to read out what was clearly another Whips’ question, but I say to hon. Members that serious issues need to be addressed in this House about what the Government are doing, and what this House should be doing, to address the serious criminality that is taking place.
	Let us deal with the wider problems this raises about resources for our police and the views that are being expressed to us—and, I am sure, to Members on the Government Benches in their constituencies—about the scale and pace of the policing cuts across the country. The Prime Minister claimed that he was making only 6% cuts, but he used cash figures, not real figures, when he knows that inflation is high and that the cuts set out in the spending review—according to the Treasury’s figures, not mine—were for a 20% cut in the Government’s police budget. The independent Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary report makes it clear that 16,000 police officers are going as a result—the equivalent of every one of the police officers on London’s streets last night will go.
	Any of us who were on London’s streets last night will know quite how many police officers were on the streets of our capital. We have heard the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary tell us that front-line, visible policing will not be hit, but, with respect, it is being hit already. The HMIC has confirmed that front-line officers will be lost this year. The Prime Minister himself used a figure of 7,000 officers in back-office jobs, but 16,000 will be cut.
	We agree that the police need to make savings and efficiencies, that they need to do more to get police officers out on to the streets and that they can sustain sensible reductions in their budgets, but the cuts set out by the Government go too far, too fast, and we do not agree that now is the time to cut 16,000 police officers across the country.

Anne McIntosh: rose —

Yvette Cooper: I will give way to the hon. Lady, if she can tell me whether she supports cutting 16,000 police officers at a time like this.

Anne McIntosh: I think the right hon. Lady would agree that recent events have united those of us living in the north and the south and in rural and urban areas. May I take her back to the time of the previous Government, who introduced a raft of community support officers with no power of arrest and had a load of police officers with the power of arrest filling in forms? Does she think that that was the best use of police resources at that time?

Yvette Cooper: I think it was right to increase the number of police officers and to introduce police community support officers. PCSOs have done an excellent job across the country, working with police officers and communities, and have been an important part of addressing some of the tensions, concerns and difficulties that we have faced in the past few days.
	Today, the Prime Minister again ruled out reopening the police budget. I implore him to think again. The newspapers report that Ministers now have doubts, and I urge him to listen to them.

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady is making much of a point about the whole issue of police cuts that was made by a number of her right hon. and hon. Friends during questions to the Prime Minister. Will she clarify
	for us the Opposition’s policy on police cuts? Do the Opposition still support police cuts of 12%, or do they want a review of or a moratorium on that? Will she guarantee police numbers or will she not?

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary will know, because we have had this debate in the House many times, that we believe it is important to give the police enough resources to sustain the number of police officers. We maintain that position now.
	The HMIC gave its view that the police could sustain a reduction of about 12% in their budget over the course of the Parliament. The former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), also said that his assessment when he was in office was that 12% could be sustained over the course of the Parliament and that that would allow the police to sustain the police numbers that we believe are so important. Instead, the Government are cutting by 20% and the steepest cuts are in the first two years. They are cutting more in the first few years than we would have done over the course of a Parliament. That is why the police, despite making immense efficiencies and taking immense actions to deliver savings, are finding that the number of police officers is being cut. That includes some of the most experienced police officers in the country, who are being forced to take early retirement against their wishes—officers whom we need and whose experience and contributions we need now.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Yvette Cooper: I ask the hon. Members who are standing in a frenzy to listen. If they will not listen to the members of their Government who are clearly starting to have doubts, or to Opposition Members who have been saying for many months how dangerous it is to make such large cuts in the policing budget, will they at least listen to their constituents, who are deeply concerned about the decisions that they are taking and the scale of the policing cuts that the Government have announced? The public know that more officers on the streets of the capital have made them safer, and they do not want those cuts now. The Liberal Democrats have raised an interesting point: if the Government called a halt to American-style police and crime commissioners, that alone would save £100 million that could go back into policing and restoring confidence.

Julian Huppert: Given the right hon. Lady’s great concern about the number of police officers, will she join me in congratulating Cambridgeshire constabulary? The chief constable has committed to ensuring that he has more police constables at the end of this Parliament than at the beginning, and he is already recruiting. Will she congratulate the constabulary on that, as well as on its performance over the last few days?

Yvette Cooper: The HMIC’s independent assessment of Cambridgeshire’s position is that it will lose around 80 officers over the course of the Parliament and the spending review. It will need to have a discussion with the HMIC, which has carried out a detailed assessment, not simply of what will happen in the first two years, but of the consequences over the course of the Parliament.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Yvette Cooper: I need to make progress, because hon. Members all want to make serious points. This is a time for us to have a debate about the events of the past few days, and I want to give Members across the House the opportunity to speak.
	We need to look at the wider action that is essential for maintaining order, and to see why so many people became involved in rioting and criminal action. Boots on the streets are not enough to sustain safe communities for the long term; that requires all of us to do our bit to stand up for law and order. It requires parents to ask where their children are, and where that new pair of trainers has come from. It requires teachers, neighbours, classmates, friends and family, social workers, youth workers and the neighbourhood police—each one of us—to ask what we can do to stop people getting caught up in gangs or frenzies of criminal activity.
	We should ask why some people had so little respect for the rule of law and for others in society, and why some people felt that they had nothing to lose by breaking the law in such a way. We should look at respect, responsibility and aspirations, but asking those questions is not about excusing individuals—quite the reverse. Nothing excuses the way people behaved. It is not about avoiding justice or appropriate punishment; those engaged in criminal acts must take personal responsibility for them, and they must feel the full force of the law. It is about preventing further crime and disorder. We will have that debate in more detail in future. I would caution against over-simplistic approaches. I agree that more should be done on parenting, but that will be harder if family intervention projects and Sure Start are cut. I agree that more needs to be done about gang culture, which has been getting worse.

Madeleine Moon: South Wales, and Wales as a whole, has been fortunate in experiencing no rioting. In fact, the devolved Administrations collectively did not have the experience that England had. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most important to look at why forces in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland successfully held their communities together and have, in partnership with their communities, avoided the riots that England has had, despite south Wales facing £47 million-worth of cuts over this Parliament?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point about why some areas fell victim to looting and criminality on such a scale, and others did not. A series of important questions need to be properly addressed. The Home Secretary raised some of them—for example, the speed and nature of the police response, and the role of social media. That is why we Labour Members believe that there is a case for a special commission of inquiry that can ask the questions that a Select Committee might not be able to ask because of its departmental remit. That needs to be properly done to give those communities that have been most affected a stronger voice in this debate about what has happened and what needs to happen now.
	I welcome what the Home Secretary has announced about action on gang culture. London Members have been warning for some time about the problems that it is creating and the fact that it has been increasing.
	Most recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) did so in her Adjournment debate, and the Home Secretary will know that other Members have done so, too. The Home Secretary needs to move fast on this. In June 2010—14 months ago—an independent report by the independent inspectors commissioned by the Youth Justice Board on the rise of gang culture was published. It said that a national strategy to deal with gang culture among under-18s was urgently needed. It set out specific measures for the police, the prisons and others. That was 14 months ago.
	In March, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) asked for the Government’s response, but the record in Hansard shows that the Government were still considering how to respond. Clearly, it is a concern that there have been delays in responding to the report, but we have the recommendations available now. I urge the Home Secretary to implement them urgently and to use them as the basis for further work that I hope we can support. I hope that action on gang culture is something that we can agree on across the House. Indeed, I believe that there is much that we can agree on, including action in the criminal justice system and support for the police.
	There are still four areas in which we ask the Government to think again. The first is setting up a proper commission of inquiry to look at the wider problems and why the riots happened. Secondly, they must look at the immediate resource pressures faced by the Met and other forces as a result of policing the rioting and criminal activity. Thirdly, there is the wider issue of resources and the serious need to reopen the policing spending review. Fourthly, they should make it easier, not harder, for the police and councils to use CCTV, which has been so important.
	I began by saying that these are sober circumstances. We have seen awful events. But we cannot just despair that nothing is to be done, and we must not. When street crime became a serious problem 10 years ago, we seemed to face an epidemic. Action was taken by the Government and police. Prevention work was done and work was undertaken through the courts. It made a difference, and street crime came down. It is possible to tackle criminality, to work together to bring crime down. That is what must happen. We have seen crime fall; we must do so again.
	People I spoke to after the rioting and the violence told me not that they are ashamed of their country but that they are still proud of our communities, our towns and our cities. The shop owners to whom I spoke had posters in their windows saying “I love Sandwell”. People want to stand together to support their communities and to stand against this awful violence and crime. We now in this House must stand together with them to do so.

George Young: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In view of the level of interest in our debate, and after discussion through the usual channels, it is my intention at 6 o’clock not to move the Business of the House motion in the name of the Prime Minister which would have terminated our proceedings at 7. It is my intention to move an alternative motion to enable us to continue until 8 o’clock to enable another 12 Members to take part in this debate.

Mr Speaker: The Leader of the House has just warmed the cockles of my heart. I am absolutely delighted to hear what he has just said, and I hope that it will be well received on both sides of the House. I thank him. I remind the House that there is a five-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions, but that is subject to review, and it is likely to be reviewed downwards, not upwards.

Gavin Barwell: I have the great honour of representing the town where I have lived all my life. Thousands of public servants, businessmen and people who work in the community and voluntary sector day by day do their best to make our town a better place to live. On Monday night a few hundred people did their worst to undo all that good work to attack our community. Shops and people’s homes above the shops were burned out in old town, west Croydon and New Addington, including Reeves, an iconic family business that survived the great depression and the blitz. More than 50 people were forced from their homes. More than 200 businesses were devastated and our tram system was put out of action. Let us be clear: there is no justification whatever for such organised criminality.
	Contrary to some reports, those responsible were not all young and they came from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds. They represent only a tiny minority. The real Croydon is the public servants: the outnumbered police officers and the firemen who risked serious injury to protect people; the council officers who the next morning tried to house the homeless; the hundreds of people who turned out to clear up our streets; the people who have pledged money to help businesses rebuild; the businesses that provided clothing for those who lost everything in the fires; and the people of New Addington who turned out to defend their shopping centre. Our town is not perfect, but we are proud of it and we are united in our determination that we will not let the wreckers win.
	What has happened over the past few days is a big test for the Government. For too long in this country we have been too soft on those who break the law and too tolerant of those who have no respect for other people. My constituents are looking for four things. The first is to restore order. The Prime Minister came to Croydon on Tuesday and I am deeply grateful. He promised extra police and different tactics and he delivered on that, but those numbers and those tactics need to continue and we need to know why they were not in place on Monday. I also welcome what he said in the House about fresh powers on curfews and on modern social network technology and on powers for the police in relation to people who cover their faces.
	Secondly, people want criminals brought to justice. CCTV played a crucial role in identifying who was responsible and I hope that Members on the Treasury Bench will take note of that. People want those responsible to be properly punished and to make reparation to those they have damaged. They want those who have committed these crimes not to have access to taxpayers’ money in the form of benefits. They want those who are council tenants evicted, so that decent people on the waiting list get a home instead. They want those who are not British citizens removed from this country.
	The third thing relates to compensation, and I warmly welcome what the Prime Minister had to say about compensation for residents and businesses. The fourth
	thing is trying to sort out the underlying issues that led to the behaviour we saw. Just because there is absolutely no excuse for what happened does not mean that we in the House should not try to understand.

Karl Turner: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents. Does he agree that the deployment of 16,000 officers in the capital meant that yobs were off the street, and that the Government’s proposed plans to cut police numbers mean that yobbos will be on our streets?

Gavin Barwell: I want the level of visible policing to continue. I recognise that we have to cut police budgets because of the economic position we face, but I want the current level of visible policing to continue.

Madeleine Moon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gavin Barwell: No, I cannot give way because other people want to speak.
	I do not pretend to have all the answers to the long-term problems. On Tuesday night, I had to go home and explain to my eight-year-old son why people behave in this way. It seems that the choice being offered is that this is about either morality or poverty, but elements of both are involved. There is an issue about upbringing. Too many young people in my town are brought up in highly unstable environments, without parental role models. Many parents feel they no longer have the power to discipline their children, and there are clear issues about discipline in schools, which the Secretary of State for Education is trying to sort out. Too many young people have no respect for other people or authority. They are very conscious of their rights but not of their responsibilities to others. Sadly, in this great city of ours there are people who are marginalised and who feel that they do not have access to the huge opportunities that many Londoners enjoy. We need to address all those issues, however uncomfortable they are for those of us on the centre right or centre left of politics.
	It is no coincidence that these events took place in the summer holidays. We need to make sure that people have something productive to do when they are not at school or when they are out of work.

Paul Beresford: As my hon. Friend will recall, I have a faint connection with Croydon Central.
	My hon. Friend’s second and fourth points are united. One of the problems is the feral children aspect. It is all very well to talk about parenting, but they have no parents of any value, and conviction would not keep them away from crime.

Gavin Barwell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is a great charity in Croydon called Lives Not Knives that tries to help people out of gang culture. Many of the former gang members whom I meet have come from backgrounds with no parental role models. Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children have been passed from foster home to foster home, and people have been abused while in care. That is absolutely an issue. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) is in the House, but we must consider
	intervening earlier when young people first show signs of getting into difficulty, rather than waiting until there are real problems.
	My real hope is that something positive will come out of what has happened over the past few days and that we will see in this country not just measures for a few days to restore public order, but a completely fresh approach to how we tackle crime, how we treat our young people, how we interact with them, how we bring them up, how we listen to what they have to say and how we try to build a stronger, more cohesive society in this country.
	My constituents sent me a clear message before I came to the House today. They are not looking for party political bickering, squabbling or point scoring; they are looking for Members to show some leadership, to look into the underlying problems, to restore order and to find a long-term solution. I hope that all Members will focus on exactly that point as we go forward in the debate.

David Lammy: The events of last week started with the death of Mark Duggan, one of my constituents, during a police operation. In the immediate aftermath of the incident, there were reports of an exchange of fire between Mr Duggan and the police. We now know that two shots were fired and that they both came from police weapons. A grieving family and my constituents deserve to know the truth about what happened that night. The IPCC investigation must be thorough; it must be open; and it must be seen to be independent.
	Other serious questions need answering. Why did the Duggan family first hear about the death of their son not from a police officer, but when the news was broadcast on national television? Why, when they arrived at Tottenham police station to ask questions and to stage a peaceful protest, were they made to wait for five hours before a senior police officer was made available to them? Why, when that peaceful protest was hijacked by violent elements, were a few skirmishes allowed to become a full-scale riot, with far-reaching consequences? Mistakes have been made by the Metropolitan police, and this must be subject to a full public inquiry.

Bob Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Lammy: I will not give way; forgive me.
	On Sunday morning, I stood amid the burning embers of Tottenham High road. There is no connection between the death of a young man and the torching of the homes of Stuart Radose and 25 other families in the Carpetright building. There is no connection between the treatment of the Duggan family and Niche, the landlord of the Spirit of Tottenham, being held at knifepoint while his pub was ransacked. I could go on. This violence was criminal, and we condemn it utterly.
	Tottenham has brave and very resilient people—I have no doubt that we will get through this together—but as the TV cameras begin to move out, I urge the Government and the House not to forget the people of Tottenham. In the House and beyond, we must also begin a much more difficult discussion: we must address why boys and girls aged as young as 11 engage in the
	kind of violent and destructive behaviour witnessed this week, and as we do so, I urge hon. Members on both sides to avoid reaching for easy slogans and solutions.
	These riots cannot be explained away simply by poverty or cuts to public services. That the vast majority of young men from poor areas did not take part in the violence is proof of that. Many young men showed restraint and respect for others, because they have grown up with social boundaries and a moral code. They have been taught how to delay gratification and to empathise with others rather than terrorise them. Those values were shaped by parents, teachers and our neighbours.

Andrew Selous: The right hon. Gentleman and I are both members of the all-party group on fatherhood. Does he agree that there is more we can do to encourage fathers to be committed to the mothers of their children and to their children?

David Lammy: I certainly agree that that is the major issue this country must confront, but a “Grand Theft Auto” culture that glamorises violence must also be confronted; a consumer culture fixated on brands that we wear rather than who we are and what we achieve must be confronted; a gang culture with warped notions of loyalty, respect and honour must also be confronted. A civilised society should be policed not just by uniformed officers, but by notions of pride and shame and of responsibility toward others. In this House and beyond, we have some deep thinking to do about what that means.
	Although that is true, there is another side to the story. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister warned that those involved in the rioting were risking their own futures. I am afraid the problem is far greater than that. Those lashing out—randomly, cruelly and violently—feel that they have nothing to lose. They do not feel bound by the moral code that the rest of society adheres to; they do not feel part of the rest of society. We cannot live in a society where the banks are too big to fail, but whole neighbourhoods are allowed to sink without trace. The problems of those neighbourhoods have not emerged overnight, but the events of the past week are a wake-up call.
	Following the race riots 10 years ago, the Cantle report warned of white and black communities living “parallel lives”. Today the same is true, but the polarisation is not between black and white; it is between those who have stake in society and those who do not; those who can see a future through education and those who cannot; those who can imagine doing a job that is respected and well paid and those who cannot; those who might one day own their own home and those who will not.
	I repeat that nothing justifies what we have seen this week, but I remember what it means to grow up poor, to live without a father as a role model, to feel frustrated and angry about my circumstances, to want to lash out and to consider the idea of picking up a bottle and joining in with the crowd. I was steered away from those things by my mother, by an elder brother, by my pastor, by great teachers, role models and youth workers, and I thank them all for that, but I was also steered away by the promise of something different—by the idea that, one day, I might go to university and get a decent job. That idea is what we have to realise for so many people in the coming weeks, months and years.

Simon Hughes: The events in south London follow what the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) has so clearly described. In Walworth and Peckham, on the Old Kent road, in Rotherhithe and in many of our other communities, we saw on Tuesday night scenes that none of us can ever have expected to see. There was some absolutely despicable behaviour—people being pulled off their motorbikes and scooters, and women driving alone whose car windows were smashed and whose car, with them inside, was raided for its contents. In the evening, we saw parents with their children—women with their youngsters—going in with the younger people to take things out of shops on the Walworth road. People were crying on the street because they had just been promised a job in a shop that was being broken up and might not be able to carry on in business.

Jake Berry: Unlike so many other subjects that the House debates, the aberration of these events link north and south. In my constituency, in Bacup, there was a riot by disaffected young people. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is time for the police to take off the kid gloves, to use the full force of the law and, where possible, to prosecute and imprison those who have engaged in such disgraceful behaviour in both the north and south of this country?

Simon Hughes: That is a clear view shared across through House. We have a common message that the law must be applied fully and without reservation, but I qualify that in one respect: it is even more important that those who are the role models—the adults, the parents and the serial criminals—are caught and dealt with without compromise. The 10-year-old, the nine-year-old, the eight-year-old, the follower, the person who got on their BlackBerry the message saying, “Come down here, it’s kicking off down here”—yes, of course, if they give in, they are to blame, as are their parents for not knowing where their children are going at 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 o’clock at night. But the older youngsters, and the ones who are over 16, 17, 18 or 21, particularly need to be seen in our courts and dealt with.
	Public opinion is clear that these disturbances were not caused by this Government or the previous Government, or by the capitalist system. Public opinion is clear that they were simply criminal activity. The borough commander in Southwark made it clear that when people who have been nicked and are now being questioned in Southwark were asked why they had committed the offences, they did not put up some political argument for their action. They were clear that it was for the trainers, the televisions, the kit in the windows. They were clear that this was criminality.
	It is also clear that over the past few days there were very few house burglaries in Southwark. The people who were normally doing the burglaries were out on the street kicking in the windows. I am grateful that the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have accepted that the serious serial criminals, often the gang members, had a truce—between the gangs—over the past few days. That was recorded and it can be seen. They decided not to fight each other, but to go in and take on the community. Some people joined them who should
	know better—some professionals, some people from outside; the teaching assistant, the graduate—but the serious contributors to trouble in our communities, who are no good at all, are the people on whom we need to focus. Every one of the 32 borough commanders in London will say that there are about 30, 40 or 50 people who lead the local gangs and whose pictures are in the back of the police stations, and we need to concentrate on them.
	When MPs break the law and fiddle their expenses, or when police officers receive money from journalists, we have to understand that there are other questions out there and that greed applies across the board, but those were not the presenting issues last week. I want to set out where we need to go now. Above all, we need to support the businesses. Our high streets need to be back to work. We need to shop in our high streets, support the small traders and make sure they have the necessary national support.
	People want to give, and there ought to be systems whereby they can contribute to the statutory funds. If we have Disasters Emergency Committee appeals for east Africa, we can have an appeal, if people want to give, for north London, south London, Liverpool, Birmingham or Manchester too. Additional help may be needed for local councils and the local police holding the additional people in custody. There must be a willingness to report the culprits and, as we heard earlier, the media must hand over the information that they have. It is no good standing there and recording it, and not offering the information that would allow people to be dealt with.
	We need to make sure that we tackle the causes of continuing violence. As was rightly pointed out in an intervention, two thirds of those who offend come from families where there has been a history of offending. It is generational and we need to recognise those dysfunctional families where the activity is repeated. The right hon. Member for Tottenham has often made the case that we need to recognise families where youngsters are taken out of school and out of the family early, because they become the ones most at risk. We need to support the parents, because some of them find it very difficult indeed. We need to make sure that our housing strategies and our youth services are supported, and that the mobile phone industry helps. We can recover soon, but we have to stand together and support our communities in doing so.

Shabana Mahmood: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and to put before the House the experiences and the views of my constituents on what they have suffered over the past few days. When the problems started in my constituency on Monday night, we saw copycat criminality, mindless vandalism and looting. This behaviour appalled and sickened everyone in my constituency and Birmingham as a whole, and on Tuesday morning residents and traders woke up to unprecedented damage and destruction, and a resolve to work together to clean up the affected areas and make our city fit for business again. However, throughout Tuesday tensions were running high, and people came out in the evening on Dudley road and Soho road, and in other parts of my constituency, to protect their local businesses and to prevent any further damage.
	In the early hours of Wednesday morning, events took a tragic turn as three of my constituents, Shazad Ali, Abdul Musavir and Haroon Jahan, from the Winson Green area, were murdered while protecting businesses and property on the Dudley road in a hit-and-run incident. Scores of people were present at the scene and many others arrived in the immediate aftermath. The men were taken to City hospital, where a further crowd gathered, concerned and devastated at what had happened.
	Winson Green is an incredibly tight-knit community in the heart of Birmingham. The local community do not just consider themselves to be each other’s neighbours and friends, but rather they consider themselves family. Everyone is an aunt or an uncle, a brother or a sister. It is the best feature of this community, which faces significant daily challenges. Understandably, given the loss of three of their own, people were distraught and emotions and passions were running high.
	I was involved in many meetings yesterday, which brought together community leaders, elders, inter-faith groups and the police. All were keen to express their anger, anguish and upset at the events, and sought to talk about what had happened and how to prevent any further trouble. One of the most important and difficult meetings that took place yesterday was between the police and the local community. Many of those in attendance witnessed the horrific events of the night before, or were there for the aftermath. Concerns were raised at that meeting about the police presence, police response and police numbers, as well as the delay in getting ambulances to the scene, and other practical and operational issues.
	It is important that once we have seen off the threat of further violence in the area these concerns are thoroughly reviewed and that the police work with the community to learn lessons from what happened and the response to it. Given the level of anger and the potential for further tension, it was important and significant that these concerns were raised with the police by the local community directly and at a grass-roots level, and this must continue to happen. It was also made clear that keeping the people of Winson Green updated on the murder investigation is of the utmost importance. We know that one man has been arrested and is being questioned by police in connection with the incident, and West Midlands police inform me that further arrests are possible.
	I was also able to meet and talk to the families of the deceased yesterday. Words cannot describe what they are feeling right now, having lost young men in their prime. All three were well known to everyone and were much loved. I pay tribute to the families of all three men. They have behaved with dignity and calm in the face of truly tragic circumstances.
	In particular, I pay tribute to Tariq Jahan, father of Haroon Jahan. We will all have seen him on our TV screens yesterday, facing the media and the public having just lost his son. His dignity, his composure and his heartfelt plea for calm were truly humbling for all of us working to prevent any further trouble in the area yesterday. Not only did he face the media, but he made his pleas directly to the community. He arrived on the scene of the public meeting that took place yesterday afternoon and addressed the crowd who had gathered outside because they were unable to get in due to the space constraints. Tensions were running very high.
	He again appealed for calm. He told the people gathered that he wanted the police to have the support that they needed in order to find the people who murdered his son. His interventions throughout the day yesterday were instrumental in maintaining calm overnight. He set the tone and the community followed. I am proud of everyone who last night prevented any trouble from occurring, who maintained a peaceful vigil that was dignified and ordered, and who heeded the words of Tariq Jahan and the families. I appeal to everyone in the community to continue this calm and responsible attitude over the coming days too. In particular, I reiterate the vital importance of working with the police to make sure that there is no further trouble.
	I conclude by echoing the words of Tariq Jahan. Yesterday, addressing the crowds on Dudley road, he said:
	“I lost my son…Step forward if you want to lose your sons. Otherwise, calm down and go home”.
	I cannot put it any better than that, and I urge everyone to remember these words over the coming days and weeks.

Angie Bray: Ealing town centre was smashed up badly on Monday night and the damage was devastating and heart-breaking to see. It was also terrifying for those people who found themselves innocently caught up when the mayhem kicked off. A quiet suburb was literally turned into a war zone for one dreadful night. A 68-year-old man is lying critically ill in hospital after being attacked near Ealing Broadway for trying to stop some youths setting a litter bin on fire. Frankly, we are all still finding this hard to get our heads around.
	However, since then the community has shown remarkable spirit in the way it has pulled together to reclaim the streets. A fantastic operation, organised by the council and enthusiastically supported by local residents, businesses and emergency services, had cleaned virtually the whole place up by lunchtime the next day, which was heart-warming. People were buying new brooms to join in. I spent all of Tuesday meeting many of those who had been caught up in the nightmare and was moved by their courage and determination to get on with their lives.
	I have heard various accounts of what happened on the night, but there is a thread running through what most people have told me: they feel that they did not get the policing they needed. I understand their frustration, but it is important to say that this is not a debate about cuts in police numbers. In London, police numbers are actually going up and the borough commander in Ealing has told me that he is happy with his police numbers. The concern is about the deployment on the night. I must put on the record my admiration for the way the police were prepared to put themselves in harm’s way in order to protect the public as best they could.

Heather Wheeler: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for being such a feisty champion for her constituents. Will she congratulate the 22 officers from Derbyshire police force who had been brought down to help the Metropolitan police? When they got the call at 2 o’clock in the morning, they packed their bags and came straight down.

Angie Bray: Yes, of course. The police have shown themselves to be really wonderful, particularly in being prepared to get together and help wherever there is trouble.
	I also think that this country needs to have a debate about what policing it wants. As the Home Secretary said earlier, the police are often damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Too often we hear criticism that on occasion they are too heavy-handed, and next they are accused of being too soft. It is up to the public, their elected representatives and the police to have a debate and decide exactly what policing we want. Policing in this country is performed by consent. The police need our consent if they are to go in and provide a slightly more robust response, which is the sort of response that I am happy to see and for which they would certainly have my consent.

Bob Stewart: One of the real problems is that the police are extremely concerned that if they act out of a defensive position and go forward while holding the crowd or watching for evidence, they might find themselves in the dock. We must support them utterly and completely and say that from now on when they act in good faith they will have our total support, unlike what happened after the G20 riots.

Angie Bray: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. They need our consent and the confidence to be able to go into any situation knowing that they have the authority to act of our behalf to do whatever is necessary to enforce the law, which is what they are there to do. In Ealing, we welcome the extra police officers we have had on the streets on the past few nights and the extra measures announced today by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary.
	The other big question everyone was asking is how parents can allow their young kids to be out on the streets after dark, knowing that there is trouble around and seeming not to care whether they get caught up in it. It is all very well demanding more of Government and more of the police, but we should also demand more responsibility from certain parents who just do not seem to care. So often it is their communities that take the hit, with businesses and shops shutting and jobs being lost.
	What happened in Ealing at the hands of these feral young people, some of them only 11-years-old, contrasts so sharply with what I saw only a week ago, when I spent a morning with 60 16-year-olds who had just spent a week up north building a team together on an Outward Bound training course. Last week they were back in west London talking about how they would plan a fundraising campaign for local charities and organise some social projects for their local community. It was the first year of piloting for the new national citizens service summer programme. It was truly inspiring. Clearly, the more we can involve people in such programmes, the better our chance of keeping them off the streets and out of trouble.
	Nowhere that has come under attack over the past few days ago has deserved it; Ealing certainly has not. It is a wonderful place to live and work, and it is already back in business, although a number of shops and small businesses will need all the help that they can get to get back on their feet. I very much welcome what we heard
	from the Prime Minister earlier about how we will help them to do just that, but we in Ealing want to know that, if trouble springs again, the police will be in a position to respond effectively and decisively with public support, and that those troublemakers who have brought such misery to our community will be brought to justice and given the punishment that they deserve, just as the Prime Minister confirmed to me this morning.

Gerald Kaufman: The Home Secretary, in her speech, said that the tide has turned. I wish that she was right, because the fact is that the rioting of the past few days has abated, partly due to excellent police action and partly due to the weather, but it could come back at any time and under any pretext, so we must prepare for that and prepare to change the context in which the rioting took place.
	Of course, as the Prime Minister said, teachers have a role, but it is not their principal role; of course, parents have a fundamental role, but many of the young people who have behaved in such a dreadful manner over the past few days come from dysfunctional families, perhaps with single parents, perhaps with a mother or a father who is unable to help because of their own personal problems; and, of course, the police have their role, and in our city of Manchester we have outstandingly good police, for which we are grateful. But that is not enough.
	In Manchester, this is not our first experience of urban rioting. Thirty years ago there was rioting in Toxteth in Liverpool as well as rioting in Moss Side, adjacent to my constituency. At that time, Michael Heseltine was Secretary of State for the Environment, I was his shadow, and we discussed those issues. Michael Heseltine realised and understood that it was a question not only of criminality, but of urban and social regeneration. He went to Liverpool, lived there for three weeks and came back with plans for urban and social regeneration.
	We condemn the people who have committed those crimes over the past few days, but, until the context in which their lives are lived is changed, condemning them will not stop them or others like them doing it again. To do so, we need—by the Government and by the rest of us—social reclamation projects that bring people into society in order to be part of society.
	We in my constituency, for example, have a project called RECLAIM, in which young people from troubled homes and young people who have been offenders are mentored, made active, given jobs, given a voice and given a social conscience—and it works. I urge the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education to come to Manchester and to look at RECLAIM to see how kids who have gone wrong or who might go wrong can be put on the right path, made useful members of society and gain control of their own decisions and destiny.

Phillip Lee: I happened to be watching events the other night with my 87-year-old grandfather, who was born into abject poverty—seven living in a two-bedroom terrace cottage with an outside loo that was a hole in the garden. I turned to him and said, “Did you ever think of rioting? Did you ever think of stealing the latest gadget?” and he said, “No.” Why is it that in the 1930s poverty was not an excuse for poor behaviour, but apparently in the 21st century it is?

Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman just does not understand. The overwhelming majority of people living in poverty and deprivation and in dysfunctional homes will not commit crimes or turn antisocial, but some will. There is no point in pretending that because most will not, all will not.
	We have to do something about this because our society is being damaged. I represent a deprived constituency where people are proud of the area in which they live. I want to make everybody who lives in my constituency, in our cities and in our country proud, but to do that we have to do the kind of things that RECLAIM is doing in Manchester. We have to ensure that people understand that they have a choice. Wanting to steal does not mean that one has to steal. Wanting some commercial object does not mean that one has to go out and take it under the guise of a social protest. We have to do these things because there is no point in simply having a blanket condemnation of young people who go wrong. Our job and our responsibility is not simply to punish them when they go wrong, but to try to ensure that they do not go wrong again and that others do not follow them. We must seize this moment. We have not got much time, but we can make this society work better.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. There are a lot of Members who want to speak and we want to call all of them. So I ask Members to do a little less intervening and to shorten their speeches. I will drop the limit to four minutes to give everybody a good chance of contributing.

Lee Scott: I start by paying tribute to my borough commander, Sue Williams, and her Metropolitan police team, who have done a wonderful job in difficult circumstances in the London borough of Redbridge. I also pay tribute to my local council in Redbridge, including the council leader, Councillor Keith Prince, the deputy leader and leader of the Liberal Democrat group, Councillor Ian Bond, and the leader of the opposition, Councillor Bob Littlewood of the Labour party. They have united, with no party politics whatever, to do what is best with the police force for Redbridge. That is a lesson that we should all learn for the sake of our constituents.
	Over the past few days, I have visited the Co-op in Barkingside, the Tesco in Manford way in Hainault and the JD Sports in Newbury Park. I also visited a gentleman whose livelihood had been burned to the ground. He is a market trader and his van was set on fire with his stock in it. Those businesses have lost business, but more importantly the staff were scared. Each and every one of us in this House owes it to them to have a rational debate about how we will rectify and tackle the situation.
	What I believe is important is that we take the handcuffs off our police. The wonderful police forces of our great country should be allowed to do what they think they need to do, whether the powers are given to them now or are already in place. If they think that water cannon are necessary, they should choose that. If they think that plastic bullets are necessary, they should choose that. Most importantly, each and every one of us in this
	House should give our great police forces the backing that they need. We should not be critical when it suits us and praise them when it suits us, but stand behind them the whole time. Will mistakes be made? Without any question, yes they will, but that is something that we have to deal with and cope with in a rational way when it happens.
	I do not believe that it is my place to tell judges how to sentence people, but I do believe that when anyone is found guilty of crime, the clear message must be sent to others that crime does not pay. We are not talking about anybody other than thugs, criminals and looters. That is not to say that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) was wrong to say that we should not disregard people—of course we should not do that. Equally, if someone has done something wrong, whatever their background—whether they are a millionaire’s daughter or come from poverty—they must pay the price for that crime.
	We must also consider several related issues. The other night—it was about 5 o’clock in the morning—I decided to go around my constituency to see what was happening. I visited the sports shop that had just, sadly, had its window smashed and its stock stolen, and I saw a group of youths. I do not know whether I was mad or possessed—some people would say probably both—but I stopped and asked them what they were doing. They were not doing anything wrong—it comes back to the point that not everyone is doing something wrong—but I gave them some advice, which, I am delighted to say, they took. I said, “Go home, because you’re going to get nicked if you stay out. You won’t do yourself, your parents or your community any favours. Go home now.”
	We were quite fortunate in Ilford North—we had violence and problems, but it was not as bad as in neighbouring Ilford South. My neighbour, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) has gone to a community meeting today. We agreed that I would speak and that he would go to the meeting. I pay tribute to him for his work in Ilford South, where things were a lot worse, and where he made a difference. That is what we are all about in the House—making a difference. On this occasion, let us have no political point scoring. Let us all make a difference together for the sake of what is best for our constituents.

Heidi Alexander: On Monday, my constituency was the scene of violent disorder. Cars and bins were set on fire, shops were looted and there were ugly clashes between police and rioters. The windows of my constituency office were smashed, the door was kicked in and computer equipment was stolen. However, compared with those who have lost their homes and businesses, I was one of the lucky ones.
	I first learnt of those events as I sat in a New York taxi, on my way to start my honeymoon. As I listened to voicemails—one from my alarm company and two from the police—I felt physically sick. Were my staff okay? Had people been hurt? What was going to happen next? As I spoke on the phone to Lewisham’s police commander, I thought back to our conversations during my first year as an MP. They ranged from my concern about the popularity and accessibility of internet footage glorifying
	gangs and knives to his concern about the increasing number of 13 and 14-year-olds coming into contact with the police for the first time. I thought back to the television coverage of the protests in central London about cuts to the education maintenance allowance. They were largely peaceful, but stayed in my memory because of the frightening images of a minority—a small groups of teenagers, faces masked by hoods and scarves, looking for a fight.
	Some argue that this week’s riots are the direct product of Government cuts. I do not buy that; it is too simplistic. Yes, some youth centres have closed; yes, young people are angry about tuition fees, but the people out rioting on Monday are, by and large, not those who use our youth clubs, or, I suspect, those who are re-evaluating a university education because of increased tuition fees. No, the riots are primarily the result of disaffected, marginalised youths looking for a ruck. They are the result of mindless idiots who capitalised on an opportunity to nick some trainers or a plasma TV from Argos.
	Although the catalyst for the riots in Tottenham may have been anger at the police, I suspect that the person who smashed my constituency office window did not even know who Mark Duggan was. I do not believe that Government cuts or a widespread failure in police-community relations are solely to blame for the riots. I think that they are as much about kids growing up in households where no one gives a damn about what they are up to. They are as much about the glorification of violence in our society as anything else.
	Having said all that, we must ask ourselves how the climate of anger and aggression has built up among some sections of the population in our inner city. What role have Government—I include previous Governments—played in creating the climate or allowing it to take root? Youth unemployment in Lewisham is high. I have been stopped more than once on the street by young people who are really angry about the fact that they cannot find work. They are angry that the Government are making it harder for them financially to stay on at college. I am genuinely concerned that the Government, perhaps unintentionally, are writing off a generation of young people who are growing up in our inner cities. That is not to make an excuse for what has happened—there is no excuse. The riots were shameful and those involved deserve everything that is coming to them.
	I have two final points. We have to ask tough questions of the police. Was their response firm enough and quick enough? Many of my constituents do not think that it was. Secondly, we have to be very wary of those who wish to portray this as a race issue. If anything, it is about poverty—economic poverty, but also poverty of respect and poverty of responsibility. But I say again: there are no excuses for what has happened this week. The violence that we saw on our streets is a stain on the fabric of our society. Although we might wash it out over the next few weeks, the real challenge is in preventing it from ever reappearing.

Nick de Bois: May I use some valuable seconds and take this opportunity to enjoy a decent moment in this difficult debate, and say
	congratulations to the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on her recent wedding and that I am very sorry that her honeymoon was interrupted?
	I made a solemn promise to my constituents at half- past 9 on Sunday 7 August, having spent four hours witnessing what was happening to our constituency. That promise was simply that at the first opportunity I would come to this House so that Members could hear first hand what had happened and the views of my constituents. I will therefore focus entirely on that in the few minutes that I have to speak. It is important that those views are represented, because they are also reflected elsewhere.
	At around 6 o’clock in the evening, as youths—generally under the age of 25—gathered in our town centre, it became clear that this had been built up by social media throughout the day. The first outbreak occurred at about 7 o’clock, when those youths—150 of them—took to the high street, having gathered together, and then started their rampage down Church street in Enfield town. Sadly, although that outbreak was contained relatively quickly by good police work, it led to the destruction of some very good shops that have been there for more than 30 years. Mantella, the jewellery store, which has been a sole trader for more than 30 years in Enfield, lost more than £40,000 of stock. Pearsons, one of the few independent retailers with a long legacy in Enfield, was damaged front and back. And what was stolen? It was the good quality leather handbags. With a clear target in mind, high-quality goods ware taken.
	We lost many, many stores down our high street, but at that point it was not over. For about an hour, the youths increased their numbers. As I stood among them, I heard them on their phones organising to bring other people up and talking about what trains they should take. Indeed, some of them hinted at where they may be going next.

Nigel Adams: Is my hon. Friend aware that there were riots recently in a holiday resort in Spain where the police used very robust tactics? We have heard talk about water cannon, but they used rubber bullets. Does my hon. Friend think that if the people rampaging through his constituency had seen pictures on TV of rubber bullets or water cannon being used, they would have had the incentive to go out and commit copycat crimes?

Nick de Bois: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Indeed, he reflects the views of my constituents in advance of what I was going to say. Of course they were very distressed, and one of the questions—one of the wishes—was, “Why do we not use water cannons or rubber bullets?” They have proved effective in other locations. I accept that they are limited in their effectiveness in some parts—indeed, around London it would be difficult—but this case was a classic example of a wide town centre where dispersal could have been achieved, which might have changed things. Indeed, I believe that the mere threat would also restrict any future activity.
	Unfortunately, later in the evening, when the outburst grew more serious and the thugs attacked a police vehicle containing a territorial support group unit, they would disperse and run up nearby residential streets—quiet, detached streets. It was there, at around 9.30, that 30 or
	40 of them ran past me, pushing a 70-year-old man out of the way. We were face to face with them in the garden of some neighbours, and as they ran past, with their foul-mouthed abuse—these brave individuals, hidden behind their hoodies across their faces, clutching their expensive mobile phones—they embarked on finding their rather souped-up cars, which were parked in the same residential street. This was no moral crusade. This was not a campaign for social justice; this was simply criminal activity by those determined to profit from it. My constituents are furious at what happened to their town, but what is worrying was the extreme arrogance of the individuals involved. They had no fear of being recognised and no sense of right and wrong. As a country we now have to address this issue, and we will look at how to deal with such issues in the future.

David Burrowes: My hon. Friend describes the high street that we share as constituency neighbours. On the subject of what we will do about it, he will go home on the tube with me and we will see the headlines about the fury at the soft sentences being handed down to the latest offenders. Does he share my concern that the punishment must fit the crime? If it is not to be prison, it must be proper restitution, paying for their plunder and repairing the damage that they have done to our communities.

Nick de Bois: My hon. Friend and neighbour, who suffered similar problems, identifies a key point. One of the other wishes of my constituents was that justice should be seen to be served. It is not unreasonable to expect that the thugs involved should receive custodial sentences and be put to good use in repairing some of the damage that they have done. We must take them out of this cycle of crime and make efforts to reform them.
	I have three questions and I would be grateful for answers. The railway line ends at Enfield Town station. During the course of the day, the trains were packed with people coming to cause mayhem. A request was made to Transport for London to stop some of those trains, and the buses that were coming from other parts of London. It never happened, and my constituents would like to know why.
	Secondly, we believe that the vast majority of these criminals were not from Enfield, as I saw first hand myself. If we share information from CCTV and YouTube with the education authorities and the police, they can work together to identify more of them. Thirdly, why were we not able to disperse the more than 100 people who were there in the early hours?
	Let me pay tribute to the borough commander, Dave Tucker, and his team, and to Enfield council, who are now working together. Enfield is open for business. It has recovered well and our last legacy sadly—

Dawn Primarolo: Order.

Tony Lloyd: The hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) rightly concluded by saying that Enfield is open for business. Manchester is also open for business. All of the places hit by these riots must make the same claim. We must insist that life goes on and we sweep up the pieces. We must begin the difficult process of saying that we will not be defeated by the rioters.
	The rioters in my city—probably some 400 people—are not representative of young people across Manchester, which has thousands and thousands of young people. That very limited number of criminals trashed the city of Manchester in a few short hours. The real comparison is with the bravery of the police, because individually and collectively the police took enormous risks on behalf of the public and we should pay tribute to them. The much-derided local government workers and public servants worked through the night to ensure that Manchester was fit for purpose the following morning. Volunteers came in from districts in and around Manchester to sweep the streets and help out. They should be the contrast to the very limited number of rioters. It is right that we seize the question of why these disastrous riots happened, because the reputation of our country and of my city has been seriously damaged, but we must point out that the rioters do not represent modern Britain. Moral panic is not the answer.
	I hope that we will get answers from the Government on the question of compensation. It is not trivial. Police forces that face increased costs and citizens in the affected areas want to know whether adequate compensation will be provided to cover their costs, because there was ambiguity in what was said by the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. I hope that the Minister can clear up that important issue later.
	We need a wider inquiry into the whole question of how riots should be policed. This riot was different. There are no strong parallels with the 1981 riots that I remember: the causes and the structures are very different. Indeed, no real reason lies behind the current riots, apart from criminality. Nevertheless, we need to consider whether the policing of these events has lessons for the future.
	I am not proposing a vindictive attempt to put the blame on the police. As I have said, they have been incredibly brave, and it ill behoves politicians to be armchair police officers. However, we must ensure that the tactics of policing are right and that we are aware of where we are taking our police, and that must include a review of numbers. The fact is that we are asking people in blue uniforms to stand up to thugs, and we must make certain that there are no gaps in those blue uniforms. I must say, not unkindly, to the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), that when I see him with a riot shield I shall be more convinced that we have got the answers right. We, as politicians, must be prepared to do what we ask of our serving police officers.
	Let me make a final point in the few moments that remain to me. I believe that it ill behoves Members in all parts of the House to look for easy scapegoats. It was not the abolition of educational maintenance allowance or the increase in tuition fees that caused these riots. However, they do suggest that that there is no future for many of our young people. We must begin to define a future for them, so that they believe that they are part of society’s solutions rather than part of society’s problems. If we do not do so, we will condemn ourselves—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Gentleman’s time is up.

James Morris: Even before the disturbances of the last few days I had become increasingly concerned about active antisocial behaviour in my constituency, but the acts that we have seen over the past seven days have succeeded in crystallising that concern in my mind. We have seen astonishing and completely unacceptable acts of mindless violence in communities across Britain. I am bitterly disappointed and appalled that in recent days they have reached parts of Birmingham, West Bromwich, Sandwell—part of which I represent—and Wolverhampton in the west midlands, very close to my constituency. The perpetrators must and will be punished by the full extent of the law.
	However, we also need to reflect on how this has happened. Let me quote from an e-mail that I received from a constituent:
	“I may be wrong but I believe that the riots are symptomatic of a disrespect of values and we can trace the causes to a lack of discipline in schools; to a contempt of values ranging from litter, graffiti, antisocial behaviour through to more serious crime. I am convinced links exist.
	I hope, perhaps in vain, that on this occasion, that sympathy will not be extended to the culprits of riots but to the victims. Instead of sympathising with the perpetrators, I hope that the Government will look to discipline in society that is currently weak and is a major factor in our present circumstances…Now is the time and the responsible public will be with you.”
	It is important to stress that the overwhelming majority of people have been appalled by these actions, and are decent, law-abiding citizens. However, in my constituency there have been plenty of examples of low-level antisocial behaviour and crime which I believe could lead to wider problems. For instance, a couple of months ago there was a case of arson in a factory in Malt Mill lane, Blackheath. Metal theft has been a big problem throughout the black country, and the roof of Halesowen Church of England primary school has been stripped on several occasions. Graffiti in Stourbridge road and other parts of Halesowen have been a persistent and constant problem. My local police commander, Inspector Steedman, recently arrested five youths for that offence. They went before the magistrates court, and were fined a total of £29.

Margot James: I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. Is he shocked to learn that there are reported to be more than 1,000 arson attacks a year in the borough of Dudley, and that I believe that to be a gross under-report? Every day when we read the Express and Star, we learn of arson attacks.

James Morris: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is very worrying.
	I am a great believer in the “broken windows” approach to tackling crime. Allowing low-level disorder simply encourages further criminality in the same area.
	The next point to consider is why this situation was allowed to spiral out of control more broadly across the west midlands. The police acted bravely, and I want to pay tribute to the chief constable of West Midlands police, Chris Sims, and his officers in Birmingham and other areas of the west midlands, who did an excellent job in quelling this disorder.
	The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),
	That, at this day’s sitting, proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Public Disorder may be proceeded with, though opposed, until 8.00 pm.—(Sir George Young.)
	Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

Deferred Division

Motion made, and Question put forthwith  ( Standing Order No. 41A(3 ) ) ,
	That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Sir George Young relating to Sittings of the House and the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Public Disorder.—(James Duddridge.)
	Question agreed  to .

Public Disorder

Debate resumed.
	Main Question again proposed.

James Morris: The West Midlands police force did excellent work in quelling the disorder. We must recognise that many of these riots were organised. The disorder in Birmingham and across the west midlands was organised by youths using modern technology on smartphones and social networks. The police were, to some extent, always playing catch-up. I therefore believe we need to look at the effectiveness of their current techniques to ensure that the police can protect the public effectively in this new world. We must also recognise the crucial role played by brave individual police officers and the work they did to quell this disorder, and I pay tribute to every police officer who was on the streets of Birmingham and across the west midlands over the past few days.
	Respect and responsibility start at home, and we must create a situation in which parents understand that it is unacceptable for them not to know where their children are. Discipline in the classroom is important. I know my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary has recently introduced measures to improve school discipline, and that is crucial. We need to clean up our towns and we must not accept irresponsible and criminal behaviour.
	It is time for everyone to play their part, take responsibility for the state of their community and put right the outrageous wrongs we have seen over the past several days.

Richard Burden: This has been a tragic week for my home city of Birmingham. It has been most obviously tragic for those who have lost their lives and their families and friends, but it has also been tragic for those whose businesses have been hit and whose property has been destroyed. My part of Birmingham was not dramatically affected by the disturbances, but the fear there was just as real as it was everywhere else.
	We witnessed appalling scenes in Birmingham, other parts of the west midlands and elsewhere, about which there has rightly been unanimous condemnation in the House today. There has also been unanimity in calling for the right kind of robust police response. It is important too, however, that when our constituents call for things like water cannon and rubber bullets, we faithfully report what the police say to us. The clear message from the police in the west midlands is that those things would, at best, have been irrelevant and could have been destructive if used. That is not to say that they should not be available in reserve; they already are, and they always have been. They were not appropriate on this occasion, however.
	It was a time of appalling scenes, but it was also a time of real citizenship. I want to pay my own tribute to the emergency services and to echo what the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) said about West Midlands police and their officers. There are also countless council and other workers out there, cleaning up promptly through the night. We need to pay tribute to them.
	I also pay tribute to the work of politicians of all parties on the city council and colleagues in this House, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood). Real citizenship was shown by volunteers, too. The people who turned up with their brooms—interestingly, it was the Twitter network that brought people to the centre of Birmingham and elsewhere to clean up—were predominantly young, and that emphasises the fact that there should be no stigmatisation of young people. It was young people who drove the broom brigades.
	As a city—this is probably the case elsewhere—we need at times like this to celebrate what is good about our city and what brings us together. We saw that graphically in the profound dignity of Tariq Jahan just last night. On Sunday, Birmingham will come together as a city. An event has been organised to celebrate the achievements of the racing driver Nigel Mansell, who will see a star in his name put on one of the main streets of Birmingham, but many of us are saying that we should make that event a celebration of our city, of what brings us together and of the fact that we are bigger and better than what we saw this week.
	In the last few seconds that remain, let me say two things. It is not point scoring to warn about the impact of the coming police cuts. I hope that Government Members recognise that. It is also not point scoring to warn about the effects of cuts to services on young people. This is about keeping the infrastructure we need in place to prevent such things from happening again. If we are not to stigmatise people, we need to support them. That means that the infrastructure and services must be in place to give them a voice and to allow them to have the opportunities they need and demand. I do not mean those who were committing the violence this week, but the thousands of young people in Birmingham and up and down the country who say that they want more opportunity, want to see change and want to be listened to. We must listen to them, and that must be the message from this debate, too.

Jane Ellison: The rioting that affected Clapham Junction, which is in the heart of Battersea—to make a boring geographical point, it is not in Clapham, but in Battersea, as Clapham is several miles away, a point that causes great confusion—affected many businesses, leaving some of them very damaged, and left the community badly shaken. I live very close to Clapham Junction and once the police made it clear that serious trouble was expected, from about 8 o’clock, I spent an hour or so visiting businesses that were still open, particularly takeaways and restaurants, to advise them of what was going on and to urge them to take precautions. Many of them felt that they had not been given sufficient warning by the authorities and felt rather let down, and that has resulted in a loss of confidence in the authorities.
	I am also glad that, although we all acknowledge the bravery of the police and what they did, the Prime Minister said in his statement that senior police offices have acknowledged that some of the tactics need to be reviewed. In truth, parts of my constituency were a free-for-all for hours, with scenes broadcast on rolling news of people helping themselves that made it far
	harder to restore order. The numbers piling in were increasing as that carried on. Many people were appalled to see open criminality being tolerated on the streets.
	I do not know what shocked me more: passing the giggling groups of teenagers phoning their friends to check on their trainer size, the van that parked opposite my house with eight or nine balaclavaed youths piling out of it who went up to Clapham Junction, gathered up armfuls of stuff, got back in the van and drove off—obviously I have given the registration number to the police—or the fact that the first person convicted lives in Battersea and is a 31-year-old school worker in a south London primary school. We have to be very careful about reaching for easy solutions about social exclusion when we look at some of the people who have been convicted.

Andrew Selous: Does my hon. Friend agree that if that school worker is convicted—I say this in the presence of the Secretary of State for Education—it would perhaps be a good move for the school to consider dismissing them from its employment as a poor role model to the children?

Jane Ellison: In truth, I cannot see how someone convicted of that sort of offence could possibly be a role model. I am sure that the authorities will take the right action.
	I want to say a word about the mix of police skills, and about numbers. A lot of points have been made—some of them a bit party political—about numbers, but in my conversations with my area commander, the emphasis has been on having the right skills mix available to the police. The skills that a safer neighbourhoods team constable has are quite different from those of a trained public order officer, and the two cannot easily be substituted for each other, so it is not purely a police numbers issue; it is about those on the ground having the right skills mix to deploy, and being able to react to a very fast-moving new challenge.
	On the effect on retailers, I think people have been shocked to realise that loss of livelihood does not feature as high in the priorities as many feel it should when it comes to public order. It is a very serious thing for people to lose their business or their job, particularly in retail; the ultimate irony is that retail is an area of the economy that provides entry-level jobs to young people straight from school. It is the most stupid area of all to attack, and to deprive people of jobs in. If JD Sports pulls out of some of the areas that have been badly affected, the people affected would have a very similar demographic profile to those who attacked it. That is absolutely crazy and self-defeating, so I very much welcome the measures that the Prime Minister announced on business rates holidays and so on.
	I should like to make a plea, and I am sure that hon. Members will take this up with their councils. As we know, many small businesses do not apply for the relief that they are due. I have said to my council, which has been very responsive to the idea, that it should provide a form-filling service to very small businesses, to make sure that they hit their deadlines and that nothing is rejected because the forms are not in order. Wandsworth has been very responsive to that idea, and I very much
	hope that other councils will do the same. We do not want to hear of people missing out because they missed the deadline.
	There will be a lot of focus in the coming months on the causes of the problems. Essentially, there will be a focus on the gulf between the values of the young people who marched towards Clapham Junction on Monday night, armed with a brick, and the many more young people who descended on Clapham Junction the next morning, armed only with a broom, to help with the clear-up.

Malcolm Wicks: As soon as I heard that there were riots—and they were riots—in my constituency and in the borough of Croydon, I left my family holiday, and I have spent the last two days talking to many hundreds of victims. I think it is best, in the brief time available to me, to report to the House on what I have heard. There were hundreds of people on the rampage in Croydon, ranging, I am told, from those aged eight or 10 to those in their 50s, but obviously most were teenagers and people in their 20s. As the House knows, major buildings were torched; there were absolutely devastating fires. Those buildings, many of which housed businesses and accommodation, have now been demolished. When I looked at the area on Tuesday morning, I realised that it could be London during the blitz, or Berlin in 1945. It is no soundbite to say that it was a war zone. Many were lucky to escape with their lives, and not to be burned to death. A woman jumped from a burning building.
	Many dozens of small businesses—offices and shops—were trashed or robbed. There was theft on a gigantic scale. Those small businesses were mainly owned by people from our ethnic communities—hard-working, enterprising people who put their life savings into their businesses. They worked to build them up, and now they have seen them devastated.
	Of course there were brave police officers, firefighters and ambulance staff, but the thin blue line was very thin indeed; frankly, in my constituency of Croydon North it was virtually invisible, in the minds of the victims. It is interesting that the centre of Croydon, with big national offices such as those of Nestlé, major superstores such as Marks & Spencer and national brands, was protected by the police, so the mobs descended towards west Croydon, and came into my constituency—the poorer part of the borough, where enterprises are small and tend to be owned by hard-working families. I heard dozens of reports, as I ducked into shops to look at the devastation, that the police had effectively been nowhere to be seen. 999 calls were sometimes unanswered. When people got through they were told that no officers were available. If they dared to call again out of fear about what was happening, they were told they were being a nuisance and, “Please do not call again.”
	The thugs ruled the roost. Looking at it objectively, the thugs were more mobile, certainly more numerous and made more effective use of technology than the police. That is the reality as I see it. The looters in Croydon North did not have just an hour or two; they had all night to loot and loot again. The shopkeepers told me that people were returning hour after hour to take everything away. None of this was helped by the
	absurd decision of Metropolitan police commanders to withdraw our very able and experienced police commander from Croydon to look after strategy at Scotland Yard, meaning that when the riots kicked off that experience was not available.
	I have to say to the House on behalf of my constituents that there was no law in Corydon North that night. There was just lawlessness. There was no order, but there was grave disorder. There were virtually no police; the vandals were in command. People are angry and upset and we have got to do better in future.

Charlotte Leslie: When Parliament was recalled, a couple of my constituents, having watched awful scenes on television, said to me, “Oh great, so the cities are burning and the politicians are going to talk. That is really going to fix things.” But I have been really pleased that this has not been a talking shop today and some really tangible provisions have come out of this. In many ways, the communities around our country feel that politics has been sleep-talking into this situation.
	Although no one could have predicted the manner in which these riots arose, communities up and down the country have seen something that the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) pointed out: once kids see that they can do something and get away with it, the problem suddenly becomes an awful lot worse. Throughout communities, and certainly in my constituency, people have been terrorised in their own homes and prisoners in their own neighbourhoods because kids have been allowed to get away initially with low-level stuff, then a bit more, then a bit more.
	So the frustration and despair that was felt in many communities at seeing that there were no consequences to these actions was suddenly writ large over the entire nation. The people of Britain know that there cannot be a situation in which actions have no consequences. That is one of the major lessons that we have to learn. It is like a broken window policy. We have to start low-level to avoid reaching the high level. Actions have consequences.
	As chair of the all-party group on boxing, I cannot talk about the riots without mentioning the amazing role that boxing clubs have played. Moss Side boxing club and the boxing academy have been on the media. They reach out to young people with energy and aggression who are prone to activities such as rioting. Boxing clubs show them that actions do have consequences. There is discipline and if kids train and do well, they get better at something and they can take control of their life and do something with it. That is testament to fact that the concept that actions have consequences can work in a positive way.
	How have we got to this stage? How have we got to the “You can’t touch me” approach that can be seen in schools when teachers try to discipline kids and on the streets when policemen try to move on or discipline kids in the street? It has to be down to an abuse of the very valid concept of human welfare and human rights. Over the past years we have seen the rights of criminals come above the rights of victims such as my constituent Helen Stockford. She has suffered terribly and the state has not been there for her, while it has been there to safeguard the rights of her attacker.
	How has this been allowed to come about? Well-meaning human rights legislation has been taken out of context, perhaps by people who do not live in the daily reality of the consequences of a distorted human rights concept. The worst thing about a human rights concept that takes away action and consequence, and boundaries and discipline, is that not only our country suffers. Not only our cities burn when kids realise that they can loot stores and get away with it, and then get away with it again; those children themselves suffer. As everyone knows, without boundaries, we cannot know achievement. By taking away discipline, we are taking away from children the basic rule by which one can achieve, and that is simply wrong. It is a lesson that we must all take away from this wake-up call of a week.

Luciana Berger: In Liverpool on Monday and Tuesday we had two terrifying nights, which I experienced at first hand, but I do not want to dwell on the perpetrators. I want to talk about the victims, the community response and future resources.
	There have been many victims in my constituency and across Liverpool; they have seen their homes, property and livelihoods attacked. I joined Alison and her family early yesterday morning. Her pub, the Earl Marshall off Lawrence road, had its windows smashed and was looted late the night before. It was an attack on a family business and a community institution. It was totally unacceptable, and there are too many similar examples of local businesses vandalised—their shutters still closed today—and cars set on fire.
	A very small minority carried out that criminal activity, wreaking havoc on local residents and bringing shame on the city. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). An overwhelming majority harnessed the positive powers of open social networking sites, including Twitter and Facebook, to organise, in the early hours of Tuesday morning, a community clean-up. Just a few hours later at 9 am, people turned up in droves, with bin bags, brooms gloves—young and old, a couple with a baby—all eager to get stuck in and clear away the smashed glass and charred rubbish. The people of Liverpool channelled their anger and abhorrence at what had happened in a massively positive way. When trouble sadly happened again on Tuesday night, even more people turned up on Wednesday morning to help in the clear-up, showing the true face of Liverpool. They were joined by the council, registered social landlords, clear-up teams and the police. A group of strangers from across the city, volunteers and professionals, affectionately referred to as the Liverpool riot Wombles, restored pride to the city.
	In Merseyside the police have done a formidable job protecting our community and keeping everyone informed. Like my colleagues, I have not heard a bad word about their formidable efforts to protect the city and to limit damage to the rest of Liverpool. Chief Constable Jon Murphy and his team are to be commended. Merseyside police were deployed to London on Monday, but they returned to contend with the disturbances on Tuesday night. My concern is how they will be able to deal effectively with future trouble, which of course we sincerely hope will not occur.

Gloria De Piero: On that point about pressure on the police, I pay tribute to Nottinghamshire police officers, many of whom worked 18 to 20-hour shifts. One of them worked a 26-hour shift. Does my hon. Friend agree that police cuts of 20% would make that situation even worse?

Luciana Berger: Of course. The cuts are incredibly concerning. Merseyside police have already been recognised for the cuts and efficiency savings they made before the latest police settlement. No accommodation for those efficiency savings and back-office cuts were made in the settlement.

Andrew Percy: Perhaps before we decide that police cuts are the reason for the problem, the hon. Lady should consider the words of the chief constable of West Yorkshire who said he had the resources he needed and that he had enough resources to invade a south American country.

Luciana Berger: Two weekends ago, before the troubles occurred, I was out with the police in my constituency, and it was evident then that they were already stretched on a Friday night to respond to all the priority 1 calls. Over the next few years, until 2015, Merseyside police are set to lose 800 police officers, so the challenge is about the number of police officers we might lose in the future. My constituents have told me more than 100 times over the past couple of days that they want more police officers on our streets, not fewer. I echo the call from the shadow Home Secretary that the Home Secretary should clarify whether police forces will be able to recoup the additional costs they have incurred over the past few days. If they cannot, I am even more concerned about future community safety for my constituents and across Liverpool.
	My concerns extend to all our emergency services. On Tuesday night four fire engines were attacked in my patch while they were attending fires. That was a completely despicable act. Merseyside fire service is already stretched and bearing the brunt of the biggest cuts in the country. I urge the Government to revisit the amount of resources that all the people who put their lives on the line to protect us, heal us and put out our fires deserve in order to look after my constituents, all the people of Liverpool and the entire British public.

Tom Brake: I start by using this opportunity to thank and to express my admiration for the emergency services and their work—not only the emergency services that have been working at the flashpoints that we have all heard about through the press and so on and in today’s debate, but those that have been working in areas where problems have arisen although people might not be aware of them, such as in the London borough of Sutton, where many police officers, police community support officers and specials have been deployed.
	I would also like to express support for the action that the police have taken. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to be critical friends of many organisations, including the police, and to express support for them when we support their actions. I also want to express my condolences and sympathy to those
	whose loved ones have either died or been injured and to the businesses that have been affected either directly or indirectly. Clearly, in the areas where the main demonstrations have taken place, businesses have been affected, but businesses in other areas have been affected indirectly because the early closures that have taken place can have a substantial impact on many small and medium-sized enterprises.
	Of course, there can be no excuse for what has happened. Indeed, I do not think that the rioters are making any pretence that theirs was a political protest; it was criminality, pure and simple, and an opportunity for mayhem and violence which they think will be without consequences. It is our responsibility to ensure that there are consequences for them.
	Let me underline the fact that there are positives. Members have referred to the positive action that has been taken in relation to clean-ups, for instance, and I want to underline the important roles that young people are playing in many organisations—whether in the Scouts, Youth Parliaments, air cadets or a host of other organisations where young people are making a positive contribution.
	In the time that we have for the debate today, it is difficult to identify the solutions to problems that we have seen over the past couple of days and, indeed, the areas that require further investigation, but the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who is no longer in his place, quite rightly highlighted some issues around communications between the IPCC and the Met and communications with the family, and that matter requires investigation.
	Other Members have proposed the deployment of water cannon, rubber bullets and curfews as a possible solution. We need to consider that very carefully indeed, particularly as other Members have quoted their police officers and said that many believe, for instance, that water cannons are completely unsuited to fast-moving scenarios, with groups of people moving around quickly. We also need to consider the tactics and training that have been used. For instance, if it is correct, as I have been informed by an ex-senior police officer, that the Met plan for no more than three or four disturbances taking place at the same time, that will clearly need to be considered.
	The past four days have been extremely depressing. They have done enormous damage to our international reputation. They have left families in mourning and businesses damaged. They have rocked our fundamental freedoms to their foundations. Today, the fight back begins. It will be a long campaign, but it is one that we cannot afford to lose.

Hazel Blears: I am proud today of the way in which Parliament has conducted this debate. For me, the politics of law and order and of security and protecting our citizens have never been about the difference between right and left; they have always been about the difference between right and wrong. Parliament has made that very clear indeed today.
	I want to pay my personal tribute to the men and women of Salford’s police, Greater Manchester police and the police forces that came to our aid this week, in
	very difficult circumstances indeed. They were incredibly brave, committed, courageous and fearless in the face of some pretty horrendous circumstances. On Tuesday night, I saw for myself, in my community, the violence that was going on at Salford precinct. It was localised; we managed to contain it in one small area of the city, but in that small area, it was extremely intense. The cars of local journalists were torched. At one stage, according to the chief constable, there was a mob of about 1,000 people, and we did not have enough police officers to face them.
	The Home Secretary herself acknowledged today that initially we did not have enough police officers on the ground. In the first instance, we had ordinary officers in their ordinary gear—clearly, we could not send them into such circumstances. They had to stand by, and the fact that they did so while looting took place was a devastating blow to public confidence. When the riot police came, fully protected and with the right training, there were not enough of them, and at one point in the evening they had to retreat in the face of violence. They ceded the ground to the thugs and criminals. We can never let that happen again. The message to people that they, not the forces of law and order, are in control is absolutely devastating. I know that our chief constable is learning the lessons of that evening and it will never happen again. I am not criticising the police officers but we have to make sure that those tactics are not repeated.
	I am pleased that overnight the number of arrests in Greater Manchester and Salford has increased. On that evening, there were only three or four arrests, because the police did not feel able to go in and arrest people on the spot. Now, there have been more than 30 arrests in Salford and, I think, 170 across Greater Manchester. I am delighted that the courts are sitting on a 24-hour basis. Three CPS officers were in the police station overnight preparing the cases and the charges and getting them to the courts. The headline in today’s Manchester Evening News, “Instant justice”, sums it up: people have been given immediate custodial sentences—they committed the action and they have got the consequences. That is what the public wanted.
	I commend the Manchester Evening News because it has given every single photograph it took throughout these events to the police. I say to the other media—the broadcast media in particular—that they must do the same. It is their duty as public servants to make sure the police have that information.
	My final point is that we have all seen positive things—in my area, young people have been on the streets cleaning up. In the past 10 to 15 years, we in Salford have changed our community dramatically and transformed opportunities for young people: we have new schools and a new hospital; whereas before only 20% of young people got qualifications, now 70% do; and our unemployment rate has come down. There are opportunities. Salford is my city, and I am determined that we will not slip back to the bad old days of despair and hopelessness among our young people. We have a massive job to do, but I am determined to ensure that local and central Government, our public services and our citizens themselves use all our efforts. Yesterday, I heard expressions of shock, outrage and horror, but what I also heard from Salford people, who are the salt of the earth, was a fierce determination that these people will not win and we will protect our city.

Paul Uppal: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears).
	My constituency experienced rioting on Tuesday evening. Shops were emptied and our city centre became a no-go zone. Businesses that took generations to build were destroyed in a matter of minutes. Livelihoods that took years to create vanished in a couple of hours. During the clean-up the next morning, I was struck by a mental image. There is an Indian saying that it takes a lot of effort to grow a flower: it needs water, love, time and effort, but anyone in one callous moment can come and stamp on it and destroy it.
	Many hon. Members will have seen last night’s footage of Sham Sharma’s shop, which was completely looted by thieves. He and I have been struck by the total lack of respect and the disregard shown by some young people for the rights and property of others. We as a Government must do everything possible to make sure that this never, ever happens again. There is a need to restore confidence in the safety of our towns and cities, so that they are no longer boarded-up ghost towns of an evening. To achieve this, a continuing strong response is needed from the authorities. I welcome the initiatives announced earlier today.
	Many are questioning the values of society and wondering how the country has ended up in this situation. I have had many conversations with a constituent, Mr Gurdev Rai, about what he calls the three Rs: respect, responsibilities and rights. It is clear that for many, the right to live free from fear has been destroyed by the events of the past few days. Some of the rioters have spoken of their rights to express their views, to “show the authorities what we can do”, and to cause havoc in doing so. Much has been said of their rights. However, they display very little acknowledgement of their responsibilities—responsibilities that each of us has to one another, to our communities and to this nation as a whole. Maybe that has been neglected in the education that young people have received, both at home and at school. It is clear that if everyone were to behave in this manner, our society could not exist as it does.
	It is the responsibility of all to maintain everything that we hold dear to our hearts in this great country. We all agree on the principle of the right to vote and to hold an opinion, but to do so within the limits of the laws which protect the values of society. We should be grateful to live in a democratic and peaceful society. Let us be mindful that many young people across the world have been willing to die for the rights that we enjoy in this country. We have the right to free speech and a free press, and the right to congregate and protest peacefully.
	The rioters have abused those rights and destroyed the stability that has long existed. They have destroyed confidence in the safety of our towns and cities, and left many of our young citizens terrified. They have let us all down, particularly their young peers. Scenes have been shown, too, of many young people who value their society and work hard to maintain it. To return to the flower story, what I saw in Wolverhampton on Wednesday morning was many young people planting those flowers for the future.
	To live in a positive and enriching society, we must all ensure that we live by the principle of respect—respect for each other, our communities, authority and the law that maintains it. If we are to restore respect for authority in our society, we must start at home and especially at school. We need to return to the values that make our society great. That is not celebrity, fast cars, and a culture of “Me first,” regardless of the consequences. This is the real world where young people should look at those who aspire to respect others and work hard for what they achieve. These are the real heroes of our society, those who know their own value, respecting not only themselves, but their families, community, society and country.

Diane Abbott: When I saw the flames on the streets of Tottenham on Saturday night, I had a deep sense of foreboding because I knew that it was only a matter of time before the same problems came to the streets of Hackney, not just because we have many of the same underlying social conditions but because the same gangs run backwards and forwards across the border between the two communities.
	I want to stress that the pictures that people have seen on their television screens of looters in Hackney do not represent my community. What represents my community is the hundreds of people who turned out the following morning to clean up Hackney and to make good their community. I want to thank my council officers and my chief executive, Tim Shields. It is easy for Westminster politicians to denigrate council officers, but when people arrived to clean up Hackney at 10 am, council staff had been there before them and had swept Mare street and the surrounding streets, and everything was clean and orderly before 8 am. Council officers in Hackney had also been up all night monitoring CCTV, monitoring buildings in the high street for arson, and making sure the police got there to stop arson so that we did not see buildings in flames, as we saw in other parts of London. I would like to thank the emergency services and my borough commander, Steve Bending, who did the very best with the resources that were available to them.

Jeremy Corbyn: When my hon. Friend describes the response of the police in Hackney, does she share my concern that there was a poor and slow police response to what happened in the Tottenham Hale shopping centre? Does she agree that any inquiry into the policing activities must examine why there was so little police availability for that incident?

Diane Abbott: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but one has to admire people’s willingness to stand up for their community and defend their community. We saw on the streets of Hackney members of my Turkish community, wanting to defend their restaurants. However, we must be careful about vigilantism. It is one thing to defend one’s business, but it is for the police to be on the street defending communities. We have seen what happened in Birmingham. I worry about vigilantism tipping over into ethnic conflict in some of our big cities.
	Some Members of the House are talking as if disaffected, violent, criminal urban youth, with no stake in society, are overnight phenomena. I put it to the House that in London, to my knowledge, we are looking at the third generation of black boys who have been failed by the education system. I do not say this today because I have read about it in the paper. Ever since I have been a Member of Parliament this is an issue I have worked on. For 15 years I have had conferences about London schools and the black child, trying to bring the community together, trying to bring mothers together, trying to encourage them not to blame the system, or the schools, or politicians, but to take responsibility for their own children’s education. I have held workshops in Hackney for the black community, for the Turkish community, and I have had six years of running an award scheme for London’s top achieving black children. And I tell the House this: it has been impossible to get publicity for much of this activity, just as many ordinary people in our communities who are working hard with young people and people on estates cannot get publicity. But when people riot, the media is all over our communities, and the next weekend they will be gone, leaving us with these issues.
	Let me say, in the very short time available, that one of the things that I have learned from years of work, in particular around urban youth and the black family, is that most families want to do the best by their children. Members are getting up and talking about bad parents. Some of these mothers want to do the best, but they struggle. I gave an award a few years ago to a young man who came here from war-torn Somalia at the age of eight and he got a first from London university. He lived on a grim estate in Brent. His brother was in a gang. It is not just about toxic areas, toxic estates, toxic families; these are individuals. Let us hope that what is happening to boys and families in urban communities is not just this week’s issue, but is something to which the House will return and give the attention it deserves.

John Leech: After witnessing the terrible scenes in my city on Tuesday night, as a Manchester MP I am grateful to have the opportunity to take part in this debate, particularly given the number of people who wanted to speak. We need to be clear that the scenes that we have witnessed around the country are nothing other than disgraceful criminal activity, carried out by mindless idiots and career criminals who take pleasure in causing trouble and who thought that this was a golden opportunity to rob and steal and not get caught.
	I was pleased that on television both the shadow Justice Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition avoided endorsing comments from a small number of people who have tried to use this violence as a means of attacking Government policy and scoring cheap political points at a time when everyone should have been condemning the violence and criminal behaviour rather than giving anyone the chance to try to justify their own criminal behaviour.
	Following the scenes in London, Liverpool and Birmingham on television on Monday evening, there was understandable concern in Manchester that such behaviour would spread to our streets on Tuesday.
	I spent the early evening on Tuesday out in the constituency to gauge the mood and watch out for any signs of trouble. In south Manchester, we were very fortunate that we did not experience the violence that we saw in the city centre or in Salford. Incidents of disorder and criminal activity were limited, but I was shocked to hear some of the comments being made by young people on the streets. One group of young people were talking about how they intended to go into Manchester and have a great laugh looting and attacking the police. One young woman, who cannot have been above 16 or 17, was shouting into her mobile phone, for everyone on the street to hear, how annoyed she was that she was not able to go and steal herself a new television because she was pregnant. This mentality shows the sorts of challenges we face to change the attitudes of a minority of people in this country.
	A small minority of people have sought to try to explain away this poor behaviour on bad education, unemployment and a lack of things to do for young people, but that simply does not wash. Among the people already brought before the courts are a teaching assistant, a chef, a graphic designer, a university student and an 11-year-old child. It is not simply the disadvantaged and disaffected. Only a tiny minority of people have caused the trouble. The vast majority of people, regardless of their education, employment status or level of boredom, had absolutely no interest in being out on the streets causing trouble in Manchester or any other town or city across the country.
	Yesterday, along with a number of Greater Manchester MPs, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter), I attended a meeting with the police. It came as no surprise to me when the chief constable told us that the vast majority of those people who have already been arrested were already known to the police. The recent unrest has been seen by some as a golden opportunity to carry out their usual criminal activity, as they assume that they will not be caught. We need to get across the message that they will be caught, charged and convicted. I know that the police are working flat out to identify people involved in the riots, and I pay tribute to them and to the fire service for the job it has done under very difficult circumstances. Two people found guilty of offences have already been sent to prison. Swift justice will send out a clear signal to these criminals that they are not above the law.
	Finally, I would like to pay tribute to the response of the people in Manchester to the devastating scenes in the city. I was out on the streets yesterday morning helping with the clean-up operation. Work had gone on throughout—

Nigel Evans: Order. I call Mr David Winnick.

David Winnick: The Home Affairs Committee is going to conduct an inquiry, as we know, and we will see what conclusions it reaches and whether its report will be unanimous, but in my view a public inquiry might also be needed, because it is very important to determine the circumstances of Mark Duggan’s death, what happened afterwards and how his partner and family were informed.
	When I refer to the involvement of social and economic factors, the immediate response from Government Members may be to claim that I am an apologist for what has happened. I am nothing of the kind. Like everyone else, I condemn the looting, the arson and the manner in which mobs were in control in the absence of the police. In some cases law-abiding people feared for their lives. That was the case in West Bromwich and Wolverhampton, which is near my constituency, and of course there was the tragic killing of three young men in Birmingham. I am not an apologist for law-breaking and never will be, but there are social and economic factors, such as deprivation and gangs. Questions have rightly been raised about the involvement of youngsters, some of them only nine, 10 or 11 years old, and, of course, the lack of parental control. Those are all part of the social and economic factors to which I have referred.
	In the limited time available, I want to talk about the police. It is interesting that when Members have spoken today they have referred to the fact that the police were not around or that not enough of them were around. No one has suggested for one moment that there were too many police. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks), for example, that it was impossible to contact the police. In those circumstances, I ask the Ministers who are present, and the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, who are no longer in their places, whether it really makes any sense to go ahead with the proposed cuts.
	In the west midlands it is intended that there will be 1,000 fewer officers. Indeed, more than 100 officers who have more than 30 years’ service have already been asked to leave against their wishes. They do not want to retire from the police service. The Government have argued time and again that that is necessary because of the cuts, but I believe that reducing police numbers and taking the view that what has happened in the past few days will not be repeated is very foolish. I know that my view will be dismissed as purely party political.
	The other point I want to make is that I am very wary indeed of rubber bullets, water cannon and the rest of it. I am, always have been and probably always will be a firm believer in the ordinary policing that has been used in this country. In my view, the use of water cannon, rubber bullets and the rest of it, which has been suggested, far from resolving the issue, would probably escalate it and would have make the situation in the last four nights even worse. Let us put our confidence in ordinary policing and for heaven’s sake not go ahead with the reduction in police numbers. It makes no sense at all.

Philip Hollobone: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), for whom I have a great deal of respect, but I am afraid that I disagree with him on water cannon, the issue to which I want to speak this evening. In doing so, I declare my interest as a special constable with the British Transport police, and I also speak on behalf of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who would like to be here but is not for family reasons. I also thank all those police officers who have gone above and beyond the call of duty to defend local communities during the past few days, some 40 of whom have come from Northamptonshire.
	I simply cannot understand, and nor can my constituents, what the problem is with using water cannon in this country. Rioters do not like being cold and wet, and they will go home. If we spray them with cold water, especially if there is dye in it so that we can see who the troublemakers are, we will find that it is easy to arrest them. That is not an operational matter for the police, as we have been told throughout today; it is a matter for the Home Office, and I note that no Home Office Minister is present on the Treasury Bench to hear these remarks, which is a great shame.
	I have a Home Office letter, dated 22 December 2010, from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who is responsible for crime prevention. It states:
	“Water cannon are not approved for use in England and Wales. Chief Officers would need to seek Home Office approval under the Code of Practice on Police Use of Firearms and Less Lethal Weapons if they wanted to introduce water cannon to England and Wales as a potential public order tool.”
	Responsibility for water cannon rests with the Home Office, not with chief constables. The letter goes on to state:
	“The Home Office would carefully need to consider its operational merits, its technical and medical risks and its impact on the British model of policing before approving it as a tactical option for police. However I do not think anybody wants to see water cannon on the streets of Britain as we have a different culture of policing.”
	May I tell Her Majesty’s Government that my constituents do want to see water cannon on the streets of Britain? We want to see rioters hosed down, sprayed and covered in purple dye, so that we can see who the troublemakers are.

Dan Byles: Does my hon. Friend not agree, however, that water cannon are generally better at dispersing large groups of rioters who are confronting the police? In recent days, we have seen agile, nimble groups of rioters who have been evading the police, so water cannon might not be that useful in those circumstances.

Philip Hollobone: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and the rioters over the past few days have not been like those in Parliament square, but when those riots occurred recently the same excuses were trotted out about how water cannon would not be appropriate. They would be appropriate, because if all those yobs in Parliament square had been hosed down and covered in purple dye they would soon have gone home, so it is simply not fair to expect police officers, with a riot shield in one hand and a baton in the other, and when they are told off for hitting somebody with a baton, to face a violent mob without giving them the weapons that they should have to bring order back to our streets.
	My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point, but water cannon would have helped with the riots of recent days, because someone who is cold, wet and covered in purple dye is far less likely to loot their local TV shop, JD Sports or whatever, as they would know that the police would be able to come and get them pretty quickly.
	I welcome the news today from the Prime Minister that at last we are going to have some action on face coverings. May I commend to the Government my Face Coverings (Regulation) Bill, which I introduced earlier in the year, and which would have banned the covering of all faces in public? If we are going to do so for people with criminal intent, we will at least take a step forward, but may I urge Her Majesty’s Government to give the police stop-and-search powers so that they can apprehend people in order to search for face coverings? The existing legislation prevents police officers stopping and searching somebody to see whether they are in possession of face coverings.
	My constituents want to see water cannon used against rioters, and they want to see legislation to ban face coverings for those intent on promoting criminal violence. Basically, we are too soft in this country on those who would set about causing violent disorder, and it is time that the police service became a police force once again.

Keith Vaz: This has been an important debate with some powerful and eloquent speeches. It has fully justified the decision by the Prime Minister to ask Mr Speaker to reconvene Parliament.
	We have had a view of the whole country and of the constituencies that have been scarred by the violence over the past few days. In my Leicester constituency, there has been disorder. In an interview with my local radio station after what happened in Tottenham, I was asked whether I thought that it would happen in Leicester. I said that I doubted it, because Leicester is not the kind of city where such events occur. Sadly, they did occur, and I pay tribute, as have so many right hon. and hon. Members across the Chamber, to the local police force for what it has done over the past few days.
	The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) put forward powerfully his views about what should be the police’s tactics. Although I accept that policy is a matter for the Home Office, in the end these are matters for the police. Politicians can articulate their views, but at the end of the day it is the police who face the most difficult tasks of all.
	Last night I was in Clapham. I apologise to the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), because I thought that Clapham Junction was in Clapham, but of course it is in Battersea. I was with her excellent chief superintendent, David Musker, and I went to meet some of the victims of the disorder. I pay tribute to what the police have done. This debate has highlighted the importance of visibility and I think that we will return to that issue.
	I thank the members of the Home Affairs Committee, some of whom are here, such as the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), for agreeing to hold a wide-ranging inquiry into these disorders. We have just published our terms of reference and I have sent a copy to every right hon. and hon. Member of this House. Sitting here listening to this debate has almost been like the start of the evidence sessions, because each Member has put forward a powerful case for acting in different ways. I hope that Members will suggest organisations that might want to give evidence
	to the Committee. We will of course look at police tactics, the operation of gangs and mobile communications, and we will revisit issues that we have looked at in the past, such as in our inquiry into the G20 protests. This will be a thoughtful and measured inquiry, which will begin on 6 September. I am glad that the Mayor of London has agreed to be a witness. That was a pre-arranged evidence session, but he will now start off our inquiry, hopefully along with the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

Alun Michael: Notwithstanding the importance of that inquiry, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to have a wider inquiry into what the Prime Minister earlier described as the context within which crime happens, and that there should be a full-ranging public inquiry in addition to the excellent work that I am sure our Committee will do?

Keith Vaz: That must be up to the House after it has considered all these matters. My right hon. Friend is right that this matter goes far beyond issues of policing and moves into issues of justice and education. It was good to see the Secretary of State for Education here and I am glad that he will wind up the debate on behalf of the Government.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who came into this House with me 24 years ago, has been going on about the issues of black youth for 24 years-plus. Other Members of the House have done the same thing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) made it her whole career in the House to talk about the need to bring communities together and to get neighbourhoods involved in policing. Government Members have done the same. There is no monopoly of wisdom.
	We need to consider wider issues, but, for the time being, let us concentrate on giving the police the resources they need and ensuring that the disorders come to an end. Let us then move on to try to get some practical solutions to ensure that such violence never happens again.
	I have just seen the press conference held by the young man from Malaysia, who was mugged by people who appeared to come to help him. Twenty million people have viewed that incident on the world wide web. It is important for the reputation of our country and our citizens that we get the solutions right.

Brian Binley: It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. I wish him well in his important work and look forward to the Committee's report.
	My constituency is a microcosm of Britain in its ethnic make-up. The similarity between Northampton South and the national make-up is startling. I have sought the views of my constituents across that ethnic spectrum in the past three days and I said that I would report their words to the House, because they are important and we need to listen to them.
	My constituents said that we should not seek to provide excuses or justification for violent disorder; and that we witnessed blatant criminality and thuggishness in the riots and we should recognise that. They told me
	that we need to stand up to those who are driven by a total disregard for others and should make no apology for them. They said that we need to protect individuals in our communities, their livelihoods and the businesses where they work. They were the victims in the past four days, not the people who chose to disregard and abuse them. My constituents say that, consequently, our first priority is to maintain order on our streets, and I bring that message to the House.
	My constituents also say that we need to change the culture of our policing; that law enforcement, like justice, needs to be done and seen to be done; and that when punches are thrown at a police officer, the person should be arrested there and then so that the pictures go out across the nation, showing that the police are taking law enforcement seriously. Saying that they will get people later through CCTV has less of an impact. Immediate action is a vital part of stopping copycat criminals, and we need to take that on board.
	I am sad to say this to my Front Benchers, but we need to review police numbers. We need to look at what is happening this year and take the riots into account. The review should be not only about numbers, but about deployment, and we should conduct it before we make our decisions about the funding formula grants next year.
	My constituents told me that the riots were not a matter of poverty, ethnicity, multiculturalism, unemployment or cuts. They say that claiming that is an insult to the many hundreds of thousands of people who come from underprivileged backgrounds and who have fought their way out and created successful lives, making a success of business and careers. They are sick to death of being tarred with the same brush. It does not help our society to do that. We need to take on that message, too.
	My constituents are not very happy with the politicians. We need to take responsibility in the House for what we do. They deplore the fact that we do not seem to listen to them. They tell us that we are failing in that respect. They deplore our misrepresenting of important issues and putting political slant first. They deplore the fact that we make promises that we cannot or do not keep, and that we spin and show them disrespect. That goes for all of us. It is no good saying that it applies only to Government Members—it is all of us, and we need to take that on board. That is the message that I promised to bring to this place. My constituents want us, too, to change our act. We are part of the problem; we need to be part of the answer.

Meg Hillier: There have been devastating events in my constituency, where we saw criminals breeding fear in residents and leaving destruction in their wake. I, too, pay tribute to the authorities in my area and to the council, whose clean-up with the help of local residents on Tuesday morning was so effective that by the time I arrived back in the constituency from my holiday—I came as soon as I could—the area was unrecognisable from the night before.
	Police commander Steve Bending and fire commander Graham Howgate and their officers have also done a good job in restoring order to our streets. Their police
	officers are sleeping in the corridors at Hackney police station, ready for any further trouble. They are working closely with council officers in the CCTV room controlled by the council. Although there was still damage in Hackney, the use of CCTV has been effective in reducing it. To anyone who suggests that we reduce the use of CCTV, I would say that not a single constituent has ever asked for that. They always want more, not less, and we have seen the effects of that today. I would ask the Government to remember that.
	In Clarence road in my constituency, where the worst of the troublemakers were kettled in, the police faced a real challenge. Around the police line there was looting, with cars in flames. There were not enough police to stop the looting at that time, so there are questions that the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan police need to ask at the central level about police deployment—about their ability to deploy at the right speed to get to the right place at the right time—and, of course, about police numbers. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley). Now is the time to pause—to stop and think about cuts to police numbers. We do not need fewer; we need what we have now. We know that Ministers will trot out the mandarin maths that they are being fed. We need to listen to what people are saying out there on the ground and learn the lessons from what we have seen. Cuts of 20% are too deep and will have a devastating impact on our neighbourhood policing teams.
	I welcome the support for businesses that the Prime Minister has announced. One business man, Shiva Kandiah in Clarence road, spent 11 years working seven days a week, with just one day off every year on Christmas day, building up a business that is now devastated. When will the full details of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 scheme be announced, and can we be told now, at the end of this debate, whether it will help the uninsured and the under-insured?
	I have very little time to look at the causes, but it is clear that gangs were heavily involved in such activity up and down the country, and certainly in Hackney. There are three reasons to tackle the gangs. I will not repeat what hon. Friends and colleagues have said about crime being punished. We know that those criminals need to be dealt with, and residents want them dealt with severely, but young people in Hackney make up around a third of all residents in the borough, and they are afraid. They are afraid to walk around their own streets at night, and their parents worry too. Those young people worry about going to activities and youth clubs outside their postcode areas. They should enjoy the same freedoms as most of us did when we were young, and their parents should not have to worry.
	The key thing is that we are seeing a potentially lost generation, as children of primary school age are being hooked into gangs early, with some already directly involved and others with family members involved. Schools and youth support can do only so much. We need to break the cycle. I therefore welcome the Government’s talk of a report on gang culture, but it must be one that listens to young people. We have hardly heard a voice from young people in this place today, which I would have liked to have had time to
	reflect in the debate. We must talk to those who are good citizens, as well as those who are disaffected. Top-down will not deliver. We need local people and organisations working together to stop the gang culture once and for all and rescue the lost generation of very young children from getting hooked into wider criminal activity.

Andrew Selous: When I was asked this morning why I had made a 2,000 mile round trip, leaving my family to be here, even though my constituency is not affected, my answer was very simple. It is because I care for this country, like every Member here, and I am deeply upset and angry at what has happened.
	My constituents have said to me clearly that they want to see the rioters made to clear up and pay for the damage that they have caused, as well as being punished. They want to see the police move more swiftly, being deployed when needed and acting more robustly when necessary. I have a concrete proposal to make tonight. I do not want us to use the term “shoplifting” any more; I think that we should rename it “shop theft”. Let us call it what it is. At the same time, an £80 fine for stealing up to £200 worth of goods is simply inadequate. We need tougher sentences for shop theft, as I believe we should call it. Many of my shopkeepers in Leighton Buzzard and elsewhere have talked to me about the problems of shop theft—indeed, it is a problem for us all—so I would ask the Government to act on that.
	I praise the broom armies that we have seen in Battersea, Hackney, Liverpool and other areas. There is good in this country. Many people have praised Tariq Jahan from Birmingham, and I join them. I also wish to praise Pauline Pearce from Hackney, who told a mob of youngsters that they were doing wrong and that they should not riot. Good on her! Let us have more decent British citizens like her standing up and doing the right thing, because then we will have less trouble. We all have a stake in this, not just the forces of law and order. Every one of us—Members of Parliament and members of the public—can play our part in stopping these rioters getting their way.
	Of course our young people need hope for the future and a stake in our society, a home of their own, a job, support when they get married and help with saving and loans to start up a business. The Prime Minister said that he hoped this debate would look at changing the culture in our country. In my own small way, I want to play a little part in doing that this afternoon.
	Where do we learn right from wrong? We learn it from teachers and from the police, but above all we learn it from our parents. Being a parent is a really tough job if there are two of you, but it is particularly tough if there is only one of you. I salute single parents, many of whom do a fantastic job, but if there were more fathers around fewer people would join gangs. I salute Tony Wright, a former Labour Member, who said a few years ago:
	“When some other hon. Members and I were children, the cry would sometimes go up, ‘Wait until your father comes home.’ For many children in this country, there is no father to come home.”—[Official Report, 24 May 2005; Vol. 434, c. 650.]
	He was right. Let us unite around the need for more fathers to help bring up our children and teach them right from wrong. That is what the Prime Minister called on us to do when he spoke earlier today.
	There are things that we can do to strengthen families, such as community family trusts—there is one in my constituency. The “Let’s Stick Together” course is being piloted by the Department for Education in an excellent initiative. It started in Bristol and is spreading around the country. It is a small start, but let it spring up in every constituency. We can also reduce the couple penalty in the benefits system, and the Work programme will be a big help in that area too. We all have a part to play by acting responsibly. Being a parent is the most important thing that any of us will do, and that is part of the solution.

Karen Buck: Our hearts go out to all of the victims of the destructive violence we have seen in the last week, including those in the three episodes that have occurred in my constituency, and to those so tragically killed a couple of days ago. Every single one of these acts is an individual act of criminality for which those responsible must be prosecuted, and our grateful thanks go out to the police for the work that they have done. We owe them a debt that we should not repay by cutting their numbers and assaulting the leadership and integrity of our safer neighbourhood teams.
	This was not a protest and no one marched or looted with a manifesto, but nothing comes from nothing. This was an unprecedented event—an explosion on our streets that reflects a chasm between many parts of society and elements of our urban youth. We have heard a lot during this debate of concerns about the way we live now, including family, fatherhood and the community, and those are issues that we should address. We have also heard concerns about the economic prospects for our young. We have heard very little about other great themes such as values, consumerism and the stresses on our society caused by a 30-year widening in inequality. We have also heard very little about the problematic relationship between too many of our young people and the police, but that deserves to be addressed.
	Very few, if any, of these issues started on election day last year, and I am happy to confirm that fact. I know that cuts in public spending did not cause the riots that we have seen, although I also believe that youth unemployment and cuts in our youth services have not and will not help the problem of young people with nothing to do and no prospects. However, I urge Government Members to recognise that if we are to continue a thoughtful and mature debate on the causes of this crisis, they should not imply that many of the roots of the problem lie in May 1997. That is not true either, and we will not understand the problems if we follow that path.
	In the few seconds left to me, I want to focus not on the immediate policing priorities with which we have rightly been concerned this week, and not on the great themes of our economy, our society and our institutions of authority, but on a very practical issue involving gangs. It is of course true that in Hackney, south London and other parts of the country we have had a
	gang culture for many years, but it is also true that there has been an explosion of gang activity. Some is criminal, and some involves youth gangs. Those activities overlap in a way that is sometimes fluid and sometimes distinct—sometimes they feed off each other—but now it is percolating not just into city communities such as mine in Westminster and Kensington, of all places, but out into the suburbs. It is facilitated and driven by social media, although not caused by them.
	We can turn that gang culture around, and we can do it quickly. There are fine individuals and fine voluntary and community organisations that can play a part in solving the problem, but they need our sustained support, not just today, for six weeks or for six months, but over the coming years. I urge the House to accept that, if we condemn the criminal deeds that we have seen and punish the criminals who are responsible for them—as we must—we must also ensure that we do not write off our blighted urban young.

David Burrowes: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to speak about the appalling events that hit Enfield on Sunday night. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who gave a good account of those awful events. They also washed into Waltham Cross, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who has taken a close interest in the issue, and into my constituency.
	My constituents would want me to express a number of emotions on their behalf during the brief period available to me. Those emotions include, of course, sympathy for the businesses whose livelihoods simply went in a matter of hours. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) made the good point that we must never understate the importance of the livelihoods of those businesses, and that must be reflected in how we enforce the law and punish those who seek to denigrate it.
	Another of those emotions is shame: shame that one of the oldest department stores in north London, and in Enfield itself, has had to bring in counsellors to counsel members of staff who are still traumatised by what happened on Sunday night, and a dog team to reassure staff and customers about future trade. A jeweller has put sandbags in front of a shop that was raided, and other shops are boarded up because their owners are still in fear.
	A further important emotion is the feeling of support for the emergency services, which have made such a brave and sterling effort in Enfield: for the action of the local police, for the strong leadership of David Tucker, their borough commander, and for their bravery and—despite enormous provocation—extraordinary restraint. However, my constituents want, and wanted at the time, tougher action and more police. The wave of violence that hit Enfield was intolerable, and it then crashed down on Croydon, Clapham Junction and Ealing, and beyond. My constituents have a serious question to ask: why did it take until Tuesday for that particularly robust policing to arrive on the streets? They want to give their unqualified support to our police, in terms of not just numbers but empowerment. They want the police to be free from the time-consuming process of processing
	individuals from arrest to charge, and from the risk-averse culture that advocates containment rather than confrontation.
	However, there is also the issue of enforcement. The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) reported reassuring news in an evening paper about instant justice, but there is less reassuring news from today’s edition of the London Evening Standard, which has the headline “Riot Police Fury at Soft Sentences”. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the riots on their streets, but, although 400 people have been charged, there has not yet been a charge of riot. I am assured, and I recognise, that there is a heavy evidential burden and that there will probably be charges in future, but that raises the issue of the serious offence of riot.
	Guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service lists the characteristics of riots. For instance,
	“the normal forces of law and order have broken down”—
	they certainly broke down in Enfield—and
	“due to the intensity of the attacks on police and other civilian authorities normal access by emergency services is impeded by mob activity”.
	That happened in Enfield as well. Next it says that
	“due to the scale and ferocity of the disorder, severe disruption and fear is caused to members of the public”.
	That happened in Enfield, too. It also says that
	“the violence carries with it the potential for a significant impact upon a significant number of non-participants”.
	That happened in Enfield and beyond.
	We must ensure that when these offences come before the courts, even though the specific crime may be burglary or theft, they are all considered in the context that there was a riot, and the culprits are punished accordingly. We must look at the offence of riot to see whether it is fit for modern purposes.
	There is little time left to consider the deeper issues involved here. Whereas in years gone by rioters shouted “Church and King”, they now shout for “Adidas and Nike.” The pursuit now is for appearance, possessions and brands, rather than meaningful relationships, where the father is influential. He may well now be absent. We must all reflect on, and then tackle, these questions of value and culture.

Kerry McCarthy: Thankfully, the trouble in Bristol this week was not on the scale of that in London, Manchester and the midlands, and was not a repeat of the disturbances in Stokes Croft in Bristol, the so-called Tesco riot of a few months ago. It was for the most part an aimless copycat effort, although still very frightening for communities, who saw gangs marauding through the streets and setting fire to cars and bins. Having seen the television footage of what was happening elsewhere, the local community feared the worst, of course.
	I congratulate the local police on how they kept the situation under control. That has to be the priority, to ensure that the public are kept safe and can get on with their lives. I am, however, concerned about some of the measures being proposed as ways of supposedly keeping
	them safe. We have heard that water cannon would be difficult to deploy, and completely ineffective where there is a swiftly moving crowd, and Sir Hugh Orde has warned against the use of plastic bullets. I am concerned that calls for such measures are distracting from what we really need: a visible, reassuring, on-street police presence, and people in charge of local policing who know what they are doing—not the shallow populism of an elected police commissioner, and not cuts to front-line police services.
	The actions of the mob in London, Manchester, Bristol and elsewhere were mindless, criminal and inexcusable. Every time I see the YouTube clip of the injured Malaysian student being mugged by those purporting to help him, it seems more brutal, more depressing and more soul-destroying to think that people could act in such an inhumane way. However, the role of we politicians is not just to condemn. We will, of course, be pilloried by some if we try to understand, and if we dare to move beyond simple condemnations of thuggery and criminality, which are so easy to utter. However, it is our responsibility to try to prevent this from happening again, and not just in the short-term sense of policing our streets and keeping our communities safe. If we take that responsibility seriously, we need to have the political will and courage to persevere with policies that only reap rewards in the long term and perhaps sometimes do not reap rewards at all—policies that are resource-intensive and sometimes unpopular with voters who cannot understand why we are spending money on the “undeserving.”
	I am talking about investing in people’s lives and futures. I am talking about intervention—about what some would decry as the nanny state. I am talking about schemes such as Sure Start, trying to give kids a better start in life and help their parents be better parents, and the family intervention projects, working with the most problematic “problem” families, addressing issues including alcoholism, drug addiction, mental health problems, domestic violence and criminality, and trying to break the cycle of deprivation and despair. They are about as far from a political quick win as we could get, but it is very important that we continue to take such steps. I am also thinking about schemes such as the education maintenance allowance, encouraging kids from poorer backgrounds to share the same aspirations as those with an easier start in life, and funding the work in local communities by groups such as Kids Company.
	I am old enough to recall the way the inner-city riots in 1981 lit a spark in other towns, including my then home town of Luton. Indeed, I lived in Toxteth for a time as a student in the aftermath of the riots there. I saw a generation written off by a Government who did not believe in intervention and thought people should be left to fend for themselves. I urge this Government not to repeat the mistakes of the past Conservative Government, and instead to devote resources to trying to ensure that people’s lives now do not turn out the way their parents’ lives, and those of the generations before them, did.

Paul Beresford: My constituency was not hit by any rioters—and may it remain so—although we supplied police and so on, but I have considerable past professional and political experience, over years, of
	the inner cities. I had great sympathy with the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) when she spoke. She is right: very few of the young and of the youth were involved. I would expect that. However, this takes me back to when I was in education in an inner-city area, looking at some of the special schools we had, including a very special school for very difficult youngsters. It is as well that the Secretary of State for Education is here, because I have him nailed to the seat and I can raise the issue.
	At the bottom, the people who feed the gangs are the very young, and they are feral. We are talking about parenting, but they do not have parents—or not what we would call parents. The father has gone, or the mother, or both, or drugs and so forth are involved, so they are not what we would call parents. In some cases, even if the parents try, they are physically abused by their children. Those are the sort of children in some of these schools and, in particular, I have been talking to one of the teachers who helps to run one of the schools for these little and not-so-little monsters. She tells me the conviction method we must introduce has to break up that social life pattern. She says they must be forced for several months—perhaps years—to attend a really tough school or undertake real community service from 8 in the morning to 6 at night, preferably for seven days a week, and that they are otherwise to be at home with an electronic tag, under a curfew. They should have no mobile phones, no BlackBerrys, no lying in bed, no mixing or drinking with their gang mates and no shop-lifting or shop thieving, for either sport or supplies. In other words, we should disrupt their social networking and perhaps give them some education, hopefully, while obtaining some real community work from them, if we can.
	That will cost money, but it just might help. It might give a break. If we can do that at the bottom—some Opposition Members who have had the same experience as I have will recognise this—we will start to stop feeding the gangs in our inner city and to stop them spreading.

Stephen McCabe: I think the public will approve of the measured tone of many of today’s contributions.
	Many constituents contacted me to say that they did not want to see point scoring. Let me mention just two. A woman called Jenny Ellis said that the public want a resolution of this crisis. She went on to say that I should feel free to give the Prime Minister a hard time on police budgets in the future, but for now we should concentrate on reclaiming the streets and dealing with these criminals. A vicar’s wife who helps lots of less fortunate people in my constituency was clear that this is not about disadvantage but wanton vandalism and theft. She is also a magistrate who will be sitting on Friday and she wants our support for the courts to take a robust line with these offenders.
	I will not argue that everyone should get a custodial sentence, tempting though that is, but we will let the public down if those with previous convictions are bailed or if those granted bail commit further offences. I was shocked to read in the Birmingham Mail that one of the first rioters to be sentenced, for assault on a prison officer, got 10 weeks, of which he will probably serve five.
	As we move on from these disgusting scenes, we must be conscious of the risk if there is a perception that the police are being criticised or undermined. Police officers marching and protesting and a perception of conflict with the Government do not raise the status of the police in the public mind. I do not agree with the Government’s plans for the police, but I urge them to try to seek agreement and avoid a stand-off. The last thing we need is a demoralised police force. A justice system that is perceived as soft will only embolden and reinforce the mindset of those who think the police are fair game and that nothing much will happen to them if they are caught.
	I have just been contacted by some constituents who had their cars wrecked in a pre-riot orgy of vandalism. The sentences imposed on the perpetrators do not cover the damage, and the court made no compensation order. It is simply not good enough.
	I join Members in all parts of this House in calling for support for the police. We must stand up for the victims of crime and support tough, deterrent sentencing. Vicious criminal activity and lack of respect for other people and their property simply cannot be tolerated. We must make clear that our No. 1 priority is the rigorous enforcement of law and order.

Andy Burnham: We meet today as the country reels from the senseless and sickening scenes that it has seen. People’s feelings are raw, and the full enormity of events is only just sinking in, but at least Parliament has today begun to give voice to people’s concerns. It has articulated clearly the majority feeling in the country that this was a mindless spree of violence for which no excuses can be made, and which must be dealt with severely.
	We have made a start on the long and difficult task of rebuilding communities shattered by the experience, bridging the divide between the generations, and bringing the country back together. For thousands of people, this has been the worst and most terrifying week of their life. Some have seen homes and businesses lost or damaged; others have felt real fear on the streets where they live, perhaps for the first time. Many of them will have been watching our debate today. They will have heard powerful contributions from my right hon. Friends the Members for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), and for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks); from the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell); and from my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), and for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), to name a few.
	I hope that in the powerful words of those speeches, the people watching our debate have heard echoes of their own thoughts—things said that they feel needed to be said. It is small comfort, but perhaps they will end today with at least some sense that somebody is listening—that they are our priority. They must remain so over the coming weeks until Parliament resumes.

Barry Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend share my hope that when Parliament resumes, those hon. Members whose constituencies have been
	affected but who have not been able to engage in this debate due simply to lack of time today will have a chance to revisit the issue and put on record their constituents’ concerns, including about their livelihoods, which have been threatened?

Andy Burnham: It is vital that hon. Members have that opportunity, as my hon. Friend suggests. The issues will not go away once the media crews depart, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington said. People in the communities concerned will live with the issues for some time, and it is vital that we follow the matter through. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) said, we need to stand side by side with the communities affected. She spoke for not just her constituency, but every proud and right-minded person in Greater Manchester, and I thank her for what she said.
	For the most part, the contributions have been well judged. They have avoided political point-scoring, self-serving or simplistic arguments, or excuses; people quite simply do not want to hear that. Instead, we must all focus on the job in hand, on a practical response, on lessons learned and on serious reflection on the deeper reasons why this happened. We have made a good start today on that task, and have sent a number of unambiguous messages. The first, to the courts and the legal system, is that all Members of the House expect them to bring the perpetrators to justice quickly and without leniency. The second message today, which is to the police, fire and ambulance services—and indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington said, to unsung public servants such as council workers and youth service workers—is that we deeply appreciate their efforts in recent days to protect our communities, and that they will have full backing from across the House for an uncompromising response, should problems recur. Thirdly, we have sent a message to the victims of the appalling crimes.

Siobhain McDonagh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the fear that has been so shocking—the fear felt by my constituents in Mitcham and Morden and people across London? Now is not the time to withdraw those police, fire and council officers; they need to stay in their places and bring back reassurance for many of our communities.

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is right. Communities that have been affected will only just be coming to terms with what has happened, and they need to see people standing with them in the days and weeks to come to ensure that they can rebuild their lives and their communities. We need to send a message from here today to those people who have been the victims of crimes, and have felt that fear. The message is that this House is united in ensuring that they receive practical and financial help without delay to rebuild homes, businesses and communities. Encouraging statements have been made today by the Prime Minister. We thank him for what he said, but he will expect us, as the Opposition, to ensure that these words are followed through, and we will indeed do that.
	Today has been important because one after another, Members on both sides have sent a message to the young people of England—a message that may not always come through to them from the media debate on these issues. Every single Member of the House meets decent and conscientious young people week in, week out. The vast majority are making a positive contribution to their communities. Indeed, they have been doing so this week, helping with the clean-up operations around the country. We simply will not allow a senseless minority to sully the reputation of our young people, divide the generations one from another or make them fearful of one another. We must also pledge to work hard to ensure that the voices of young people are heard in this debate as it unfolds. Perhaps with the inquiry that the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee has announced, we must ensure that their voices are heard in shaping the response to these events.
	In the aftermath of any serious event, it is right that we all reflect on the circumstances and, where necessary, learn lessons. A number of issues have been raised today on which we hope that the Government will reflect. First, questions relating to the operational resources and guidelines for the police have been raised by many hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) and for Battersea (Jane Ellison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden).
	Acts of mob violence or vandalism are not new. I saw them myself at football grounds in the 1970s and 1980s. What is new is the speed with which crowds can gather and copycat violence can spread across a city and into other cities. That is a modern phenomenon made possible by the misuse of communications technology. Policing needs to change to respond to it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles said so powerfully, we simply cannot have a situation in which police officers have to stand by and thugs take control of the streets. So we urge the Home Secretary to work with ACPO on this, as she said she would in her speech. We also ask her to think again on the question of police numbers, which was raised by so many hon. Members this afternoon, and not in a point-scoring way. We heard these points raised by the hon. Member for Croydon Central and in a powerful speech by the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), who called for a review of this issue.
	People in London will have noticed the divergent statements made by the Mayor of London and Ministers. It seems premature for Ministers simply to rule out any extra funding. It is not just about the Met. Cuts to frontline policing are happening all over the country, and people in other parts of the country know that shortages in the Met are filled by forces elsewhere. Rather than dismissing calls for funding to support police numbers, would it not make sense for the Government to reserve their position until they have received a detailed report from the acting Commissioner of the Met and from chief constables of other forces affected on the operational challenges that they faced in the nights earlier this week?
	My appeal to the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet is not to announce a U-turn here, but at least to have an open mind on the question of police
	numbers and to consider looking again at the resourcing of our police forces when they have a clearer picture of the pressure they have been under this week.
	Secondly, there are questions about the resources and capacity of our courts and prisons. We appreciate the efforts of court staff to hear cases—indeed they have sat through the night, as many hon. Members have mentioned. We want that to continue. There must be no return to business as usual or long delays before people stand trial. We welcome the report in the Manchester Evening News which shows how the courts are cracking on with the job of delivering instant justice. That is indeed what the public want and we urge the Government to find the resources to make sure that people are brought to trial. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said today, the Government need to look again at the number of prison places, and at sentencing policy to ensure that it reflects the mood of the House, and indeed the mood of the whole country. We urge them to do that.
	Thirdly, points have been raised today by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary about the Government’s approach to tackling antisocial behaviour and the use of CCTV. In the early days of the Government, a change of policy was signalled, away from the use of CCTV, antisocial behaviour orders and the DNA database, but as we have seen, CCTV is being used extensively to bring the perpetrators of violence and vandalism to justice. Listening to the Prime Minister today, I detected a different tone on these issues, and I welcome that change of tone. We welcome his recognition of the value of CCTV and the reassurance it can bring to many of the communities affected this week. We will continue to seek assurances that the Government will not hinder its use by local authorities. The Government need to take care that they do not send mixed or confusing signals in the whole area of tackling antisocial behaviour.
	Fourthly, concerns have been raised today about the advice and support available to young people. Let me be clear: nobody rioted because of cuts to youth services, Connexions or the careers service, yet all those services have an important role to play in the response on the ground to rebuilding shattered communities. Youth workers are front-line prevention in many of our communities. The Home Secretary mentioned the work she wants to put in place to tackle gang culture, and I welcome what she said. However, it is important to recognise that youth services in parts of London and other cities have been working painstakingly for many years to prevent young people from falling in with gangs, yet as the Select Committee on Education recently reported, there is a significant loss of youth service support on the ground, with cuts of up to 100% in some areas. I urge the Secretary of State for Education to look carefully at what the Select Committee said.
	Questions were raised in the debate about parenting, which is an issue that unites the House. We support parents, particularly young single parents, in giving the best possible support to their children. Following the Allen and Field reports, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to be vigilant about changes to the support offered through Sure Start and other early intervention services so that we ensure that valuable services for parents are not lost.
	Schools have an important role to play, as many hon. Members said today. I again assure the Secretary of State that we will continue to support the measures in his Education Bill that improve the tackling of discipline in schools. I give him my word on that, but I ask him to look at some of the things we did that are working, such as the use of school-based police officers, who are very important in building links with young people to ensure a steady flow of information between them and the police. I urge him to reflect on that.
	As our debate has revealed, the challenges we face are complex and must be approached on many levels. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) was right to draw a comparison with the early 1980s, when Michael Heseltine went around the country to engage deeply with the issues that affected people. I hope the Government will think about that and about the calls they have heard today for a deeper commission of inquiry on the issues, alongside the Home Affairs Committee inquiry.
	That will help us all to avoid simplistic solutions to fit a preordained political narrative. For the left, it means not blaming everything on cuts. For the right, it means not demonising an underclass. It also means taking care in the language that is used. I do not think any part of this country is sick or broken. Every community has solidarity, decency and neighbourly spirit in it, with people trying to do the right thing. Every community has the capacity for self-improvement. We should support them, not knock them down and label them.
	As the hon. Member for Northampton South said, addressing the deeper challenges means a deeper assessment of our society. In a powerful contribution, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham spoke about challenging the "Grand Theft Auto" culture that glamorises violence, and I entirely agree. We need a culture of responsibility in our schools, but we also need to face up to the fact that for all the progress we have made, our country is still scarred by serious inequality of opportunity, where life chances are unevenly spread and young people without social networks and connections often struggle to make their way in the world.
	We need to consider those questions, but they are for another day. It has been a dark week, but the country should draw strength from the unanimity that the House has found today and, indeed, our dedication to respond collectively in the right way. At the close of the debate, it is right to pause for a moment to think of those who are recovering from injuries sustained, and particularly the families of Mark Duggan, Haroon Jahan, Shahzad Ali and Abdul Musavir. As we go away from here this evening, back to our families, we should do so with the words of Haroon’s father at the front of our minds and the hope that we will find in the days and weeks ahead the same unbelievable strength, understanding and courage to deal with these events as he has shown.

Michael Gove: We have had a very good debate today, and the speeches of hon. Members on both sides of the House have been of a uniformly high standard. The contributions made by hon. Friends and other hon. Members have made me proud to be a Member of Parliament. It was a vindication of your decision, Mr Speaker, to recall the House.
	In the past 15 months, Parliament has resumed its central place in the life of the nation, and the House and its Committees have done superb work. Once again, today, Members have faithfully reflected their constituents’ concerns and spoken in a way that enhances the reputation of the House and electoral politics.
	I am particularly grateful to hon. Members from Lewisham, Enfield, Ilford, Ealing, Wolverhampton, Hackney, Tottenham, Battersea, Bristol, Liverpool and Manchester for their speeches, which reflected their direct personal engagement with those who have been victims of this terrible week. The fact that they all spoke with such force and eloquence underlines the fact that we have Members who listen and are in touch, who act and then report back and who analyse what has gone wrong and argue for a better country. In that sense, when I hear calls for a commission of inquiry, I take the old-fashioned view that Members of Parliament are inquiring into the state of the nation, reporting back to the House and arguing passionately for change and that we should always stress that there is no better voice of the nation than this Chamber, and it has never done its job better than at the moment, reflecting the anger but also the hope of our constituents.

Barry Gardiner: Despite what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, does he understand the concern not just in the House but across the nation that a public inquiry should be held into the events that have gone on? This has been a national event; it has affected people in every part of the country, and if it is simply left to a Select Committee, they will not feel that it has been properly addressed.

Michael Gove: The point was made constructively, and I hope to respond in a constructive fashion. I will not rule anything out at this stage. We are still in the middle of restoring order. It is vital and appropriate that we show ourselves open to learning lessons, but I absolutely have confidence in the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). The Home Affairs Committee has done a great job in the past 15 months, and he will do a superb job. The terms of reference of his inquiry seem to be broad and comprehensive. But, of course, lessons will need to be learned, and while we are in the process of restoring order it would be premature for any of us to say that our minds are closed to any constructive suggestion about what we can learn.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Gove: Not yet.
	I should like briefly to refer to four particularly outstanding speeches that were made during the debate, the first of which came from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). The points that he made resonated. From the moment that Mark Duggan’s tragic death came on to our television screens through to the horrific scenes that we saw over the weekend, the right hon. Gentleman’s voice has been one of common sense and moral clarity at a difficult time. His speech again today was superb, when he pointed out that the vast majority of young men did indeed show respect and
	restraint through the past week because they have grown up with a male role model, a moral code and a recognition of boundaries. He made the critical point that our great cities of course rely on our police forces, but ultimately order is policed by individuals who show pride, shame and responsibility to others. I could not have put it better myself.
	I also agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander). I share her sorrow at having to come back to this House from her honeymoon, but I have to say that, even though her husband may be disappointed, her constituents should be proud of her for the speech she made today. She pointed out that the riots are a result of disaffected and marginalised youth who have grown up in households where no one gives a damn, where violence is glamorised and where there is real poverty, particularly of responsibility and aspiration. It was a superb speech and she has done a great job for her constituents.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) drew a vivid and affecting picture of how one of London’s most attractive suburbs could be convulsed by violence, as individuals intent on wrongdoing took to the streets in the most wicked of ways. He asked detailed and constructive questions about the roles that the local authority, schools and TFL can play in making sure that our response to future events is sharper. We will write to him to ensure that his constituents’ concerns are addressed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) made a brilliant speech, in which she spoke up with passion on behalf of her constituents, pointing out that, for all those young people who picked up a brick in anger or greed on the night that violence gripped her constituency, there were many, many more who picked up a broom in optimism and hope the next morning. That underlines what the past week has shown: both the worst and the best of our country.
	We see the worst when a 31-year-old man who is a learning mentor in a primary school, whose job is to inspire the young, is found guilty of burglary. We see it when a daughter of a millionaire couple who had the best education the state can provide becomes, it is alleged, a getaway driver for two other young criminals. When we watch the video of a young boy, who travelled across the world from Malaysia to study in this country because he saw us as a civilised community and a place of hope and learning, apparently being helped up, only to be robbed, all of us are sickened and ask: how can this happen in our country? When we think about the Sri Lankan couple, who fled civil strife in their own country to come here and build a life and a business, only to see their business trashed by criminals, or when we think of Salford town centre, which has been regenerated by an imaginative town council and a great MP, sent back a generation in one night by the violence of thugs, we all ask ourselves: why has a culture of greed and instant gratification, rootless hedonism and amoral violence taken hold in parts of our society?
	Even as we despair, we can hope, because we have also seen the best of Britain this week, such as the volunteers mentioned by many today who took part in the clean-up operation immediately afterward. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) made the vital point that local authority officials, officers and workers have done an exemplary
	job, not least in her own constituency, where the mayor of Hackney, Jules Pipe, has shown real civic leadership. The way in which people who take pride in their community worked hard the next day to clean up the mess that had been created by an amoral minority was, to my mind, the very exemplar of public service. Also, let us not forget the work of the fire and ambulance services, who, alongside the police, risked life and limb to restore order and to ensure that people were safe.
	We should take pride in the way in which multicultural Britain rose to this unique challenge: the Turkish citizens of Dalston who defended their families and businesses; the Sikh citizens of Southall who defended their gurdwara and their families; and the British Muslim citizens of Birmingham who sought to defend their communities. When three of them were mown down by one evil individual, we saw the best and the worst of Britain clash in one moment. All of us were moved beyond words by what Tariq Jahan said about the death of his son and the lesson that we should learn. We have seen modern Britons across this country stand up for old-fashioned British values of decency, solidarity and a determination to protect the vulnerable. If there are examples that we should bear in mind in this House and in our work in the weeks ahead, it is the leadership that those individuals have shown.
	As well as seeing the best and the worst, we have witnessed a conflict on our streets between right and wrong. Those who have been committing these acts are individuals without boundaries, respect for others, or any moral sense. Those who were standing out against them and protecting us were the police. Let me pay tribute to the courage that has been shown by ordinary officers in the course of this week. Their leave was cancelled. Many of them have been working with very little sleep, facing the prospect of real violence and damage to life and limb, yet have uncomplainingly gone out there to protect us. We can be proud of those officers and the commanders, who have had to take terrible risks but who have ensured that for the moment order has been restored.
	We heard how borough commanders from Hackney to Wandsworth and Ealing to Redbridge have ensured that the reputation of the Met, having taken a battering in recent months, is once again restored as a force that we can all take pride in. The chief constables of west midlands and Greater Manchester, faced with tremendous challenges, have also shown courage and imagination. We should applaud their bravery. Yes, there will be lessons to be learned. Yes, inevitably, in a difficult situation, when there was no intelligence of what was going to happen, mistakes will have been made, but how many of us could show the same degree of courage and resolution, faced with young men bent on violence and determined to cause havoc, when we knew that if we stepped out of line or transgressed the rules, we could find that our own life, livelihood and reputation were gone? Let us remember just how difficult modern policing is, before any of us casts a rhetorical stone at any of those individuals.
	There were, across the House, widespread expressions of support for the police and for a more robust stance in the future. Having talked to a variety of police officers over the past week, I know that the sentiments expressed in the House go with the grain of policing opinion. My hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Central and Acton
	(Angie Bray), for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), and for Ilford North (Mr Scott), the hon. Member for Lewisham East and the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), all of whom encouraged the police to take a more robust stance, will find and have found a willing audience in those who are responsible for deploying the forces that maintain order.
	Both my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary agree. I have been privileged to spend time attending the Cobra briefing meetings over the past week, and I have seen the degree of willing co-operation, energy, imagination and determination on the part of both the civil powers and the police to deal with the situation that we faced.
	Of course there are suggestions from hon. Members about things that we might consider in the future. I was particularly struck by the powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) who, speaking as someone who is a special constable, made a strong case for the deployment, if necessary, of water cannon. Let me underline to the House that the operational requirements of the police will be met in full by the Government. If they need support or help, they will get it. Yes, it is the Home Secretary’s ultimate decision whether a police force can use water cannon, but if any chief constable considers it appropriate to deal with any aspect of civil disorder, this Home Secretary has made it clear that she is on their side, and I hope the whole House will be. Mercifully, those steps have not needed to be taken, and our tradition of community-based policing by consent has seen our police force restore order to our streets with the help of our communities.
	As we look at the way in which the police operate, it is important that we do not back-pedal on reform. Our police are still held back by a legacy of bureaucracy that I know all of us on both sides of the House want to tackle. There are still 1,000 process steps and 70 forms to get through when they are dealing with a simple burglary. Twenty-two per cent. of police time is spent on paperwork. Jan Berry, the former head of the Police Federation, has pointed out that one third of police effort is over-engineered, duplicated or adds no value. We can reform our police force in order to ensure that the officers we have are there on the streets where we need them, and this should be a cause that unites us across the House in a determination to ensure that police professionalism is respected.
	But as the right hon. Member for Tottenham pointed out earlier, when we want our streets policed, we need them to be policed as much by the moral self-restraint of individuals as the uniformed presence of officers, and that means that we need to affirm at this time the values that we all know have been overlooked or neglected in the past. We all know that a culture of dutiless rights has led to a generation of parentless children. Being a father means taking on the most important job in the world, and those who are there when a child is conceived should be there when a child is raised. We need to remember: I am my brother’s keeper. We have a responsibility to others, and all of us find a fulfilment in service that is greater than anything that can be found in shallow hedonism or instant gratification. We need to say to the young people of this country—and the overwhelming majority know it and want to hear it affirmed—that hard work, self-discipline, aspiration, respectability and respect for others, the values by which
	they lead their lives, are the values that we will defend whenever and wherever they come under attack. I am so grateful that so many Members from both sides of the House have affirmed those principles tonight—
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved , That this House do now adjourn.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)
	House adjourned.